The court established that the notional income of a student deceased in a motor accident should be assessed based on their educational qualifications and future prospects to ensure just and fair compensation.

ORDER

This Misc. Appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the Award dated 25-09-2010 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track), Morena (hereinafter referred to as "Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case No.10 of 2010, on the ground of reduction of compensation amount.

2. The date of the accident, negligence, and liability are not in dispute.

3. Challenging the impugned Award, it is contended on behalf of appellant- Insurance Company that the Claims Tribunal passed the impugned Award which is against the facts and material available on record and settled principles of law. The Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the dependency of deceased, Pravendra alias Monu Dubey, who was a bachelor, as 2/3rd of his income. Looking at the prospective expenses of the deceased for his own family, which he would have raised, the dependency assessed by the Claims Tribunal is on the higher side. The Claims Tribunal also erred in assessing the income of deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month without any basis. In the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation , reported 2009 (6) SCC 121, a 1/3rd deduction ought to have been applied towards personal expenses.

4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the claimants/respondents No. 1 and 2, by filing cross-objection i.e., IA No. 3423 of 2016, submits that respondents No. 1 and 2 are the parents of deceased, Pravendra alias Monu. These respondents are the legal heirs of the deceased and were completely dependent on his income. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to receive compensation for all losses resulting from the deceased's death. At the time of the accident, deceased, Pravendra alias Monu, was 18 years and 6 months old. He was studying in the first year of his B.Sc. in Microbiology at Shrishti Galav Postgraduate College, Morena. The deceased was extremely intelligent in his studies and had a promising future. It is contended that after completing his studies, he would have worked as a scientist or a good officer, which would have guaranteed him a monthly income of at least Rs.30,000/-. The claimants contend that the deceased would have provided this income to the respondents, which would have supported their livelihoods. In support of contentions, the learned Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhuvnesh Sharma and Others vs. SBI General Insurance Company Limited and Another , reported in 2026 (1) TAC 54 (SC), wherein it was held that for a deceased pursuing engineering in the second year, the loss of income was computed on the basis of notional income of Rs.10,000 per month. Similarly, the judgment in the case of Urmila vs. Naresh Mahaur and Others decided on 23rd April 2025 in Special Leave to Appeal No. 5585 of 2024, wherein the deceased was a student of Engineering and also coaching students, the loss of income was computed on the basis of notional income of Rs.12,000/- per month. Hence, the Claims Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month.

5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

6. Upon perusal of the record of Claims Tribunal, it is an undisputed fact that the deceased was a bachelor and a student of B.Sc. First Year (Microbiology) under Jiwaji University, Gwalior, as shown by document Ex.P24. It is clear that at the time of the accident, the deceased was a student of B.Sc.F