The court established that compensation for a deceased minor must reflect proper notional income assessments based on relevant case law, necessitating a revision from initial figures.

JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J.

1. The present order shall dispose of both the above-captioned appeals. The parties are being referred to as Insurance Company, claimants and owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle for the sake of clarity. FAO-3702-2017 has been filed by the Insurance Company and FAO-7573-2017 has been filed by the claimants aggrieved by the impugned award dated 07.02.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 27.09.2014.

2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts are not being adverted to for the sake of brevity.

3. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following compensation:

4. Learned counsel for the claimants has not laid any challenge to the future prospects @ 50%, multiplier of ‘18’ as well as deduction of 50%. However, he has contended that the deceased in the present case was a young boy of 17 years who was studying in 11th standard and had a very bright future ahead and the Tribunal has erred in assessing his notional income only as Rs. 6,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the claimants has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bishnupriya Panda Vs. Basanti Manjari Mohanty and Another , 2023 (4) TAC 44 to contend that the deceased in that case was a 4th year student of MBBS and Hon’ble Supreme Court had assessed his notional income as Rs. 50,000/- per month for an accident that took place on 27.07.2013. Further, reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Kumar Aggarwal Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others , 2023 (3) TAC 23 wherein the notional income of the deceased was taken as Rs. 29,166/- on the basis of an appointment letter. Further, reliance has been placed on the case of an engineering student in the case of Kandasami and Others vs. Lindabriyal and Another , 2023 ACJ 1653 where the accident took place on 28.09.2008 and the notional income was assessed as Rs. 25,000/- per month. It is further the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that no amount has been awarded towards loss of estate.

5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that in the present case recovery rights ought to have been given as the Driving Licence was a fake licence since on an application filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the PIO and District Transport Officer, Tuensang, Nagaland stated that the record could not be traced. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has further contended that the said letter has been appended with an application (CM-12096-CII-2017) for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Qua the quantum of compensation, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that future prospects @ 50% has wrongly been awarded which ought to have been 40% as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others ,