The court established that potential employment and future earnings of a deceased student can significantly influence compensation calculations in accidental death claims.

JUDGMENT

T.R.Ramachandran Nair, J The son of appellant No.1 died in an accident on

05-02-2008. The deceased late Edwin Baby was travelling on a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-07/P 8470 from Kollam to Karikode and the accident had occurred near the Karikode Railway over bridge, when the motor cycle hit a Tata Indica car bearing Reg.No.KL 04/J 4856 driven by the first respondent. The second respondent herein is the insurer of the car and the third respondent is the driver of the motor cycle.

2. A total compensation of Rupees 10 lakhs was claimed, but the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.2,22,500/-

with interest of 7.5% from the date of filing the petition.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant highlighted the fact that the deceased was studying in TKM Engineering College, Kollam in the final year B.Tech M.A.C.A.No.2320 of 2010 2 course. The appellant No.1 was examined as PW1. Evidence was adduced to show that he was a bright student and Exts.A6 to A8 are the documents in support of the same. The learned counsel heavily placed reliance upon Ext.A9 series appointment letters from Infosys, Mysore. We have gone through the said series of documents. He was offered an employment as Software Engineer. It appears that the salary offered is Rs.25,000/- per month and during the training period he will obtain an amount of Rs.19,569/- as stipend.

4. The Tribunal did not rely upon the same and assumed that he was still a student at the relevant point of time and therefore the notional income has been assessed as Rs.3,000/-.

5. Going by the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, the crucial question to be considered is whether Ext.A9 could be relied upon for fixing the quantum. Of course, the achievements of the student had resulted in obtaining an offer of appointment as evidenced by Ext.A9. Therefore, the same cannot be M.A.C.A.No.2320 of 2010 3 ignored for assessing the compensation herein. It really points out to the fact that he was assured of a job after his course is completed and he was about to complete his course also and only 6 months further classes remained.

6. But at the same time, he was still a student and therefore the assessment should be based on the future prospects and potential of the student. He was in the final year of the engineering course. The assessment made by the tribunal at the rate of Rs.3000/- is a too meagre one. According to us, various factors including the achievements in the academic field and the fact that he was about to complete the professional course, will support the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the quantum of compensation should not be fixed on a reasonable basis. According to us, if an amount of Rs.8,000/- is taken as the notional monthly income, it will be just and fair compensation.

7. Considering the age of the deceased as well as the multiplier used to assess the loss of dependency, we feel that reassessment of compensation is warranted.

M.A.C.A.No.2320 of 2010 4 The multiplier is adopted as '18' in view of the principles laid down in Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)]. Hence, we refix the just compensation as follows:

8. The liability has been apportioned equally between the two vehicles and therefore 50% of the same will have to be satisfied by the second respondent company as well as the balance will have to be borne by the owner and driver of the motor cycle. The owner of the vehicle stands deleted from the party array as per the order in I.A.No.3814/2014. Hence we pass the following order :

9. Out of the total compensation of M.A.C.A.No.2320 of 2010 5