The potential future income of the deceased and the entitlement to compensation for future loss of income were central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

Ajai Tyagi, J.

1. By way of this appeal, the claimants have challenged the judgment and award dated 15.11.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar (herein after referred to as ''Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No.211 of 2001 (Shri Raghuraj Singh vs. Gyan Singh and others) awarding sum of Rs.9,62,000/- as compensation to the claimants with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

2. At the very outset, it is relevant to mention that the claim petition was instituted by his father on account of death of a unmarried boy, who met with a road-accident. Initially, the mother of the deceased was not made party before the learned Tribunal though she was and is still alive. She being the class-1 heir as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956, should have been made party as claimant. It was on the face of record before the learned Tribunal that mother of the deceased was alive even though the learned Tribunal did not take pain to call upon the claimant to implead the mother as a party. Claim petition was decided in favour of claimant. Now at the time of hearing this appeal, we pointed out the aforesaid fact to the parties and on our behest, appellant/claimant made the mother of the deceased as party/claimant in the memo of appeal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that appellant Raghuraj Singh (father of the deceased) filed a claim petition before learned Tribunal for seeking compensation on account of death of his unmarried-son in a road accident. It is averred in petition that on 24.5.2001, the deceased, namely, Vaibhav Talan, was going to Lucknow from Kanpur in a car bearing No.UP-78-AC/9288. He was sitting on the back-seat. At about 2:30 p.m., when the aforesaid car reached near Sainik School Pulliya, within the jurisdiction of Police Station-Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, a truck bearing No.UP-78/9655 coming from backside at a very high-spead, driven rashly and negligently by its driver dashed against the car. In the accident, deceased sustained fatal injuries and died.

4. Heard Shri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and Shri Pradeep Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

5. The accident, in this case, is not in dispute. The liability of respondent No.2-Insurance Company is not in dispute. Finding of negligence is also not challenged. The claimant/appellants have filed the appeal for enhancement of compensation while during the course of arguments, the Insurance Co. has orally objected to the finding, arrived at by learned Tribunal regarding Issue No.3, which relates to the driving-licence of the truck-driver.

6. Hence, apart from the finding regarding the driving licence of the truck-driver, it remains the issue of quantum of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was a boy of 24 years only. He had passed M.B.A. from Jamuna Lal Bajaj Institute of Management, Mumbai, and had secured the job in Ranbaxy Company and he had to join on 1st June, 2001, i.e., just after a week of this unfortunate accident. Learned counsel further submitted that a copy of the aforesaid appointment-letter is filed on record, which also shows that his salary was fixed more than Rs.20,000/- per month, but learned Tribunal ignored this fact and assessment of his monthly income was met on the basis of his basic-salary only.

7. Per contra, Shri Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Insurance Company, has submitted that the deceased had not joined the service, therefore, the salary mentioned in appointment-letter cannot be taken into account for calculation of compensation. He elaborates that at the time of death, the deceased was not earning, hence notional income should be taken.

8. We are unable to concur with the above submission of by Shri Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. It is a fact that the deceased had yet not