Assessment of compensation should consider the potential earning capacity of the deceased, taking into account educational qualifications and family background.

JUDGMENT :

Ajai Tyagi, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the claimants-appellants for enhancement of compensation awarded to appellant by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.16, Kanpur Nagar ('Tribunal', for short), vide judgment/award dated 9.11.2017 and decree dated 14.11.2017 in M.A.C.No.820 of 2010 (Vinod Kumar Mishra & others vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd. & others) whereby claimants/appellants was awarded Rs.4,71,500/-, with 6% rate of interest as compensation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.12.2008, the deceased was going on her scooty bearing No.UP78-BP/2060 in District-Kanpur Nagar. When she reached near Railway-crossing, GT Road within the jurisdiction of Police Station-Chakeri, a truck bearing No.UP78-AT/4739 coming from opposite direction, which was being driven very rashly and negligently by its driver hit the scooty of the deceased. In this accident, Kumari Anjali Mishra (deceased) sustained fatal injuries and died during the treatment in hospital. A police report was registered at concerned police station regarding the accident. The owner and insurer of aforesaid offending truck filed their respective written statements before the Tribunal. Driver of the truck did not participate in the proceedings. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation with 6% per annum rate of interest, the appellants-claimants filed this appeal.

3. Heard Shri Ved Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Rajeev Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents-Insurance Company.

4. The accident is not in dispute. The insurance company has not challenged the liability on it. The issue of negligence has attained finality. Now the only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Entire factual scenario is not being narrated as the limited question in this appeal relates to the quantum only.

5. With regard to the quantum, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the age of the deceased at the time of accident was just 21 years and she was student of B.Tech. and had passed 3rd Year; her career was very promissing. It is also submitted that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by way of imparting tuitions, but learned Tribunal assessed her monthly income at Rs.3,000/- only. Further submission is that compensation under the heads of non-pecuniary damages is on the very lower-side; Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,500/- for loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses. No amount regarding filial consortium has been awarded. It is next contended by counsel for the appellants that Tribunal has applied multiplier of 17 while it could have been 18 in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC)]. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has heavily relied on the following judgments :

A. Meena Pawaia and others vs. Ashraf Ali and others, 2021 LawSuit (SC) 743,

B. Jakir Hussain vs. Sabir and others, 2015 LS (SC) 147

6. Shri Rajiv Ojha, learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company, vehemently objected the contentions made by counsel for the appellants and submitted that deceased was only a student; she was not earning anything. It is further submitted that according to the averment of claim petition, the deceased was imparting tuitions and earning Rs.6,000/- per month, but no documentary evidence in this regard has been adduced by the appellants. Hence, the oral submission does not carry any weight, therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly assessed her income to be Rs.3,000/- per month; multiplier is also correctly applied. Learned counsel appearing for Insurance Co. has lastly submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment, which calls for any interference by this Court.

7. It is admitted fact that at the time of death, the age of the d