The court upheld the use of notional income for a student lacking proof of earnings but enhanced the compensation under conventional heads to align with the guidelines established by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the appellants–claimants challenging the order and decree dated 08.11.2018 passed in M.V.O.P. No.1653 of 2015 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.9,37,200/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization for the death of deceased-M. Santosh in a motor vehicle accident.

2. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 seeking to enhance the claim amount from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/- and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 08.12.2025.

3. Heard the submissions of learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was a brilliant student pursuing his B.B.M. (Bachelor of Business Management) at Gandikota Business School and was also earning income through private tuitions but the Tribunal erroneously fixed the notional income of the deceased at only Rs.6,000/- per month. It is argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads is also meager. Thus the learned counsel prayed this Court to enhance the compensation.

5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company contended that in the absence of any concrete evidence regarding the earnings of the deceased, the Tribunal was justified in taking a notional income of Rs. 6,000/- per month. It is further contended that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and requires no further enhancement.

6. As seen from the material placed on record, the accident occurred on 19.06.2014, while the deceased was traveling in a car bearing No.AP 28 TV 6479, the driver drove the vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed into an unknown vehicle. As a result, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The Tribunal, after examining P.W.1, P.W.2, and Exhibits A-1 to A-8, concluded that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the car driver. This finding of negligence is not disputed in this appeal.

7. Sofaras quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal took the age of the deceased as 18 years at the time of the accident basing on S.S.C. Certificate (Ex.A-7). Admittedly, the deceased was a first-year student of B.B.M. Although the claimants alleged he earned Rs.10,000/- per month, no documentary proof was submitted. Consequently, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is reasonable for a student in the year 2014. By adding 40% towards future prospects and deducting 50% towards personal and living expenses as the deceased was a bachelor, the monthly contribution was determined at Rs.4,200/-. Applying the appropriate multiplier of ‘18’, the Tribunal arrived at the loss of dependency at Rs.9,07,200/-. On re-appreciation, this Court finds that the said computation is in accordance with settled principles and the amount awarded under this head is just and reasonable, warranting no interference.

8. However, the Tribunal has awarded meagre amounts under the conventional heads. Having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi ¹(2017) 16 SCC 680, the ap