HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 237/2022

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Having Its

Registered And Head Office At 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort,

Mumbai-400001 And Having Its Regional Office At Second Floor,

South Block, Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Through Its

Constituent Attorney

----Appellant

Versus

1.

Kamla Devi Wife Of Girdhari Lal, Resident Of Gram

Rooppura, Post Dugoli, Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar (Raj.)

2.

Girdhari Lal Son Of Lalaram, Resident Of Gram Rooppura,

Post, Dugoli, Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar (Raj.)

3.

Mahendra Singh Son Of Ramdevaram, Resident Of Nehro

Ki Dhani Dugoli, Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar (Raj.) ( Driver

Jeep No. Rj-14-Ua-3126)

4.

Santosh Batad Wife Of Narendra Batad, Aged About 40

Years, Resident Of Makan No. 01 T-37, Sector No. 1,

Chitrkoot Park, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur, District Jaipur,

Presently Residing Gram Bathoth, Tehsil Laxmangarh,

District Sikar (Raj.) ( Owner Jeep No. Rj-14-Ua-3126)

----Respondents

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr.Sanjay Singhal, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

Order

18/02/2022

This appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance

Company challenging the award dated 12.12.2021, whereby claim

petition filed by the claimants has been partly allowed in their

favour and an award of Rs.38,10,000/- along-with interest @ 7%

per annum has been passed from the date of filing.

(2 of 3)

[CMA-237/2022]

Learned counsel Mr.Sanjay Singhal appearing for the

appellant submitted that the impugned award suffers from legal

infirmities.

Learned counsel submitted that admittedly deceased was a

student undergoing the course of Bachelor of Engineering and at

the time of his death, he was not employed anywhere.

Learned counsel submitted that when income of the

deceased was assessed, presumption has been drawn that the

deceased would have earned Rs.25,000/- per month after

completion of Bachelor of Engineering Course and as such income

of Rs.3,00,000/- per annum has been assessed for the purpose of

grant of compensation.

Learned counsel further submitted that Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal also wrongly considered future prospects of the

deceased, as the deceased was not employed at all and in absence

of employment, future prospects could not have been calculated.

Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has

wrongly relied upon the case of National Insurance Company

Limited Vs.Pranay Sethi & Anr. (Special Leave Petition

(Civil) No.25590/2014) decided on 31.10.2017, as the said

case does not lay down the law that a person who is student and

not employed, can still be granted compensation for future

prospects.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the

Tribunal below has also wrongly placed its reliance on the case of

Smt.Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation &

Ors. reported in 2008 RAR (S.C.) 1 and further the multiplier of

18 has also wrongly been applied.

(3 of 3)

[CMA-237/2022]

I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for

the appellant and perused the material available on record.

This Court finds that the deceased, in the present case, was

a student of Bhartiya Institute of Technical Engineering College

and considering his educational qualification and the course, which

he was pursuing, the Tribunal below found that the minimum

income of an engineering student would have been at least

Rs.25,000/- per month.

This Court further finds that the deceased, after completing

the engineering course, would have also been entitled for future

prospects and accordingly his income would have been assessed

on the same parameters as an employed person for his

entitlement regarding future prospects, while doing the job.

This Court finds that a bright student pursuing engineering

course, if dies, in a fatal accident and the entire family i