AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Appellants seek enhancement of compensation and a high of interest. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udhampur has awarded
compensation of Rs. One lace to them with interest @ 6% p.a. Their grievance is that compensation awarded is on the lower side and so is the
rate of interest.
It was on July 27; 1983 that a budding life was cut short in a road accident on JammuSrinagar National Highway. Charanjit Singh, 28, a
Graduate in Agriculture had gone to Anantnag in Kashmir to appear in an interview. Oh his; way back, he was hit by a passeager Bus belonging to
respondent No. 1 at a place called Dharmanthal. There is no denial to the fact that he had qualified his B.Sc. Agriculture and was seeking a job.
Nor it is in dispute that he was unemployed at the time of accident and had no definiteincome which. Could be made basis for awarding
compensation.
Before the Tribunal, appellants tried; to establish by evidence that at the time of accident he was a earnings. 500/ PM as a private tutor out of
which be used to pay Rs.400/ Pm to support hi family. Tribunal made it the basis and on applying a multiplier of 20, in the feats and circumstances
of the case, awarded compensation of Rs. one laces to them.
Appellants case now is that while assessing contrapuntal had ignored future prospect of Earning by the deceased over looking technical
qualification acquired by him. It is Projected that deceased was bound to enter service and would have surely earned an Amount of Rs.2500/PM,
on an average. The difficulty in the present case is how to Assess compensation for loss of future earnings in a situation when deceased was
admittedly not in any service and no regular income was accruing to him at the time of Accident.
He was undoubtedly an educated youth, about to enter a career and who knows how he would have shaped and what he would have earne4 in
his career. It all fails in the realm of conjecture. Considering technical qualification acquired, by him, there is little doubt that he was on the,
threshheld of a reasonably prosperous career at the time of accident, It. would be no exaggeration to estimate that he would have earned anything
between Rs.1500/ to R. 2500/ PM in whatever jobtie would take up. This could be even far more depending upon how good he had performed d
and how long he would live. Therefore, given regard to all imponderables, it would be unfair to estimate his income at Rs.500/ PM making his
tuition work as the basis It sounds totally illogical that he would have remained a private tutor all his life and on a static earning of Rs.500/ PM.
In my view, Tribunal has adopted a very conservative and unreasonable approach in the matter. It has overlooked the potential of deceased to
shape a career for himself, given regard to his technical qualification. Assuming he had failed to get even a suitable job Still his future earning could
be put in the range of Rs.1500/ to still his future earning could we put in the range of rate Rs. 2000/ P. M. which even class iv employees earn in
normal course Therefore, considering all circumstances of the case, I am convinced that Tribunal has erred in determining the income of deceased,
which by all standards should have been estimated around. Rs.500/ P.M. Out of this, Rs.500/ could be deducted as his personal expenses,
resulting in loss of Rs.1000/ to dependants. On applying multiplier of 20 adopted by Tribunal, which appears to be a reasonable one,
compensation shall have been assessed at Rs. 2400,000/ on which deduction of Rs.40,000/ could be made on account of lumpsum payment.
Proceeding on this premise, I enhance the compensation by Rs. One lace, bringing the total to Rs. two laces.
I accordingly allow this appeal and direct respondents to pay compensation of Rs. two laces to the appellants in the ratio determined by the
Tribunal along with interest (c) 6 % per annum Record to be returned to the Tribunal concerned.