Jagjit Singh & Anr. vs State Of Haryana & Ors.

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J.(Oral)

This appeal has been instituted by claimants for enhancement of compensation against the Award dated 03.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short “Tribunal”) in MACT Case No.149 of 1998 in the petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'Act'), vide which a sum of Rs.2,22,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization on account of death of their son, namely, Gagandeep Singh in a motor vehicular accident due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.2-Som Nath, while driving the Govt. Gypsy No.HR-01F-121 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle'), owned by respondent No.1-State of Haryana.

From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:-

4. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants as mentioned in the para No.1 of this judgment, payable by respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally

Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts of the case regarding the manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held under Issue No.1 that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.2 while driving the offending vehicle owned by respondent No.1. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly, finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with.

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate and Tribunal while awarding lumpsum compensation of Rs.2,22,000/- has committed a grave error. Infact, deceased was an engineering student studying in first year and had a bright future. After obtaining the degree, he would have earned handsome salary and as such, the compensation should have been awarded by assessing his monthly income and taking into consideration the fact that deceased was 19 years of age, 40% future prospects should be added to his monthly income. After determining the dependency, multiplier of 18 should be applied and compensation should have also been awarded under conventional heads. Learned counsel contended that the award passed by the Tribunal is based on conjectures and surmises and he prayed that compensation be suitably enhanced. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon 2009(6) SCC 121 Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2017 (16) SCC 680 National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Other, 2018 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 333, ‘Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others and (2021) 11 SCC 780, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the adequate compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal and no interference in the said award is called for and appeal in hand be dismissed.

Coming to the assessment of compensation, the term ‘just compensation’ has been elaborated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 867 (SC), Syed Basheer Ahamed and Others Vs. Mohd. Jameel and Another, and it has been held that while assessing compensation in a motor accident claims case, the Tribunal should award compensation which appears to be just. The expression “which appears to be just” vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal in the matter of determination of compensation. Nevertheless, the wide amplitude of such power does not empower the Tribunal to determine the compensation arbitrarily, or to ignore settled principles relating to determination of compensation. It has been further held that although the Act is a beneficial legislation, it can neither be allowed to be used as a source of profit, nor as a windfall to the persons affected nor should it be punitive to the persons liable to pay compensation and that determination of compensation must be based on certain data establishing reasonable nexus between the loss incurred by the victim or dependents. It has been further held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factors for determining the compensation. As such, compensation is required to be assessed by taking into consideration above-said parameters.

As per version of claimants, their son Gagandeep Singh aged 19 years had died in the accident in question who was studying in 1st year B.E. (Electrical Engineering) at Shaheed Udham Singh College of Engineering & Technology, Tangori/Mohali as stated by PW5 – Jagjit Singh. The Tribunal in view of the status of the deceased as a student and the fact that he was not an earning member, awarded Rs.2,22,000/- as lumpsum compensation which is grossly inadequate. Instead of granting lumpsum compensation, Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the fact that the deceased was an engineering student and in the case of an engineering student, the notional income should be assessed on the basis of educational qualification and future earning potential rather than by equating with minimum wages of a skilled or unskilled worker.

Now the point to be decided is as to what amount should be taken as income of the deceased who was a first year Engineering student. It is well settled that notional income can be reasonably assessed based on the social status, educational background and facts and circumstances of the case and some amount of guesswork thus has to be applied while assessing the monthly income of the deceased. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2022(1) RCR(Civil) 222 Smt. Meena Pawaia and Ors. Vs. Ashraf Ali and Ors., held that the income of the engineering student who died in September 2012 can be taken as Rs.10,000/- per month. In 2026 INSC 477 Mohinder Kaur (D) Through LR Vs. Brij Lal Arora and Ors., Hon'ble Supreme Court while assessing the notional income of third year engineering student who died in a motor vehicular accident on 28.05.2000 assessed the notional income to be Rs.12,000/- per month while placing reliance upon 2020 SCC Online SC 1562 Navjot Singh Vs. Harpreet Singh and Ors. In the present case, the accident had taken place in the year 1998 and therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, the income of deceased can reasonably be taken as Rs.7,500/- per month.

Deceased was 19 years of age as has also been held by the learned Tribunal and as such, 40% amount has to be added to the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects in view of law laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi's case (supra), which takes his income to Rs.10,500/- per month (Rs.7,500/- + Rs.3000/-).

The petition in hand has been instituted by parents of the deceased. However, deceased was a bachelor and 50% of the income thus has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. After deducting a sum of Rs.5,250/- towards personal expenses, the monthly loss of dependency comes out to Rs.5,250/- (Rs.10,500/- - Rs.5,250/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.63,000/- (Rs.5,250/- X 12).

As per guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma's case (supra), multiplier of 18 has to be applied as deceased was 19 years of age and after applying the same, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.11,34,000/- (Rs.63,000/- X 18).

As per law laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi's case (supra), a sum of Rs.70,000/- is payable towards conventional heads i.e. Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- on account of funeral expenses. However, the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi's case (supra) was passed in the year 2017 and taking into consideration the price index prevalent in the year 1998 when the accident took place, the claimant No.2/mother is held entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate. Likewise, claimants No.1 who is father of deceased is also held entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- for 'loss of parental consortium', in view of law laid down in 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram's case (supra)' and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur's case (supra), which takes the compensation to Rs.12,14,000/-.

Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the appellants/claimants is assessed as under:-

Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and appellants/claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.12,14,000/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.9,92,000/- (Rs.12,14,000/- - Rs.2,22,000/-) over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 22.10.1998, till realization to be shared equally by the appellants, payable by respondents No.1 to 2, jointly and severally.

Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.