JUDGMENT :

Harkesh Manuja, J.

By way of present appeal, challenge came to be laid to the award dated 12.11.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'), whereby an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was awarded as compensation to the appellants/claimants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

Brief Facts

2. A claim petition came to be filed at the instance of the appellants/claimants before the Ld. Tribunal, while alleging rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1/driver; and for the grant of compensation on account of death of Sandeep in a vehicular accident, which took place on 10.10.2006.

3. The Ld. Tribunal, after appraisal of evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1/driver and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-.

3.1. Further, liability was jointly and severally fastened upon respondents No. 1 to 3, and the compensation amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was ordered to be deposited in FDRs in the names of the appellants/claimants and the remaining amount was to be released to the claimants in equal proportions.

4. Being aggrieved of the award dated 12.11.2008, the present appeal was preferred by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of compensation. Facts, as specified in the claim petition, about the manner of the accident and the issue regarding negligence of the driver recorded in favour of appellants/claimants by the Ld. Tribunal need no repetition for the sake of brevity.

Arguments

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was a student of 2nd year enrolled in Computer Engineering at Haryana College of Technology and Management, Kaithal and had a bright future. It was further submitted that the above fact was duly proved from the deposition of the appellant, Mohinder Singh (PW-2) as well as the eye-witness, Ravinder (PW-1) which had not been rebutted by the respondents by leading any evidence, thus, the Ld. Tribunal went wrong while assessing the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellants/claimants. He further contended that nothing has been awarded under the conventional heads, therefore, he prayed for the enhancement of compensation as per the latest law.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent No. 3-Insurance Company neither refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts of the present case, the compensation assessed by the Tribunal called for no interference.

7. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the paper-book of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appellants.

Discussion

Question of Income Assessed

8. In the present case, perusal of the record indicates that deceased-Sandeep, at the time of accident, was 21 years of age. He was pursuing Computer Engineering at Haryana College of Technology and Management, Kaithal and was stated to be a brilliant student. In such cases especially, relating to students there is no established or uniform method for determining the income of the victim as no concrete evidence in this regard is available.

8.1. Under somewhat similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.' (2010) 10 SCC 254, has held as under:-

'14. On completion of Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) from the prestigious institute like BIT, it can be reasonably assumed that he would have got a good job. The appellant has stated in his evidence that in the campus interview he was selected by Tata as well as Reliance Industries and was offered pay package of Rs. 3,50,000 per annum. Even if that is not accepted for want of any evidence in support thereof, there would not have been any difficulty for him in getting some decent job in the private sector. Had he decided to join government service and got selected, he would have been put in pay scale for Assistant Engineer and would