206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-3367-2006 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 18.03.2025 Pawan Kumar and others ......Appellants Vs.

Jai Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Anil Ghanghas, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

*****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 27.03.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation, granted to the claimants/appellants to the tune of Rs.1,75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, on account of death of Jitender Kumar in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 14.09.2003.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contends:-

i) that the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced.

ii) that deceased-Jitender Kumar was 17 years old; besides being studying in 10+2 class, was also running a milk dairy and also used to be tuition work and thereby was earning Rs.10,000/- per month.

iii) that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding a lump sum amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,75,000/-;

rather than giving under the appropriate heads.

Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced, as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award and contends that the amount of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

6. A perusal of the award shows that deceased-Jitender Kumar was 17 years old a student of 10+2 class; was stated to be running a milk dairy and also used to do tuition work and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month therefrom but no evidence was led on record to prove the same. The learned Tribunal has erred while declaring the deceased only as a student and not an earning man because though it was not proved that the deceased was earning any sum of money during his life but the fact that he was a student of 10+2 class could not be ignored. This Court has dealt with the same issue in FAO-1857-2007 titled as ‘Savitri Devi Vs. Balwan Singh’ decided on 19.09.2024. The relevant extracts of the said judgment are reproduced as under:-

“10. In such cases, there is no fixed or uniform formula for determining the income of a student where no tangible proof of earning is available on record. Consequently, while calculating the notional income, the Tribunal should have taken into account both the academic qualification and extra curricular engagement of the deceased.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in V. Mekala Vs. M. Malathi and another (2014) 11 SCC 178 has considered the notional income of a student studying in 11th standard, who was injured in a road accident that took place in the year 2005 as Rs. 10,000/- per month. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while taking the notional income of the injured as Rs. 10,000/- per month had considered the fact that the injured was a brilliant student as she had secured first rank in the 10th standard and was likely to have a better future in terms of educational career by acquiring a basic or master's degree in professional courses which could have gotten her a suitable public or private employment but on account of the permanent disablement she suffered due to injuries sustained