IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 11.03.2026 SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. ... Appellant(s)

Versus Rajan Khanna & Ors ... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Subhash Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. Rahul Pathania, Advocate for respondent No.6.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide the impugned award dated 09.03.2023 in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 22.07.2018.

2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts are not being adverted to for the sake of brevity.

3. The Tribunal in the present case, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Vasanthi & Anr. vs. M/s Adhiparasakthi Engg. College & Anr. [2022 (4) RCR (Civil) 837] has assessed the notional income of the deceased as ₹30,000/- per month as it has been proved on record that the deceased was a student of MBA and awarded the following compensation :

4. The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that the income of the deceased has wrongly been assessed as there was no evidence on the record as to the amount that a freshly graduated MBA student would be earning and it is merely by relying on the judgment of S. Vasanthi’s case (supra) that the income has been assessed as ₹30,000/- per month.

5. Per contra the learned counsel for the claimant-respondent Nos.1 and 2 would contend that the detailed mark-sheet of the deceased was already on the record to prove that he was a student of MBA. Learned counsel would further contend that rather the income has been assessed on the lower side. Learned counsel has further contended that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads as well as under the head ‘loss of consortium’ is not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642]. Learned counsel has further contended that though no appeal has been preferred by the claimants, however, this Court under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is empowered to make or pass any such order as required notwithstanding that an appeal or cross- objections have not been preferred by the claimants especially in view of the fact that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surekha & Ors. vs. Santosh &

Ors. [2021 (1) PLR 795]

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. In the present case, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the income of the deceased has been assessed wrongly and excessively deserves to be rejected. The deceased in the present case was admittedly a student of MBA which has been proved on record by his detailed mark-sheet as well as the oral testimony of the claimants. Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Vasanthi’s (supra), in the case of an accident which took place on 22.05.2010 wherein also the deceased was a student in second year of MBA Course, had assessed the notional income as ₹30,000/- per month. In the absence of any evidence having been led by the claimants to show the income being earned by the colleagues of the deceased or the income being earned by a MBA pass-out, no fault can be found with the income as assessed by the Tribunal relying on the judgment in the case of S. Vasanthi (supra). Accordingl