F.A.O.No.136 of 1996 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No.136 of 1996 Date of Decision 23.04.2010 Mrs.Kamlesh Sood and another ...... Appellants VERSUS M/s Oriental Insurance Company and another ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.R.M.Suri, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Kamal Kant Verma, Advocate for Mr.R.K.Bashamboo, Advocate, for respondent No.1-Insurance Company. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This appeal for enhancement is directed against the award dated 18.02.1995, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (herein referred as 'the Tribunal'), awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.61,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum in favour of the appellants-claimants (herein referred as 'the claimants') and against the respondents on account of the death of Anish Chander Sood, aged about 25 years, in a motor vehicular accident. On 01.08.1993, Atul Chander Sood, alongwith his wife Kamlesh Sood and two sons Anish Chander Sood (now deceased) and Ashutosh Chander Sood, was travelling in a car bearing registration No.CHI-9889 from Chandigarh to Delhi. Atul Chander Sood was driving the car. When they reached near the power house of Lalru, Atul Chander Sood lost the control over the car, resultantly, the car somersaulted, as a result of which Master Anish Chander Sood had fallen out of the car and received injuries so as Kamlesh Sood. She was taken to Philadelphia Hospital, Ambala City from where she was referred to PGI, Chandigarh whereas Anish Chander Sood died. F.A.O.No.136 of 1996 2 As an aftermath of the accident, Kamlesh Sood filed two claim petitions, one for her injuries and the other on the death of her son Anish Chander Sood, which were contested by the respondents. From pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the claimant sustained injuries and permanent partial disablement in a motor vehicular accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of Car No.CHI-9889 by respondent No.2 as alleged ? OPP 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to claim compensation from the respondents. If so, how much and from which of them ? OPP 3. Whether the claim petition is fraudulent as alleged ? OPR 4. Whether the respondent No.2 was not having a valid driving licence, if so, its effect ? OPR 5. What is the effect of further objection No.2 in the written statement of respondent No.1 ? OPP 6. Relief. Both the parties led evidence. The Tribunal, while awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.24,700/- on account of the injuries suffered by Kamlesh Sood, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.61,000/- on account of the death of Master Anish Chander Sood. Feeling dissatisfied, the appellants have sought enhancement of compensation qua the death of Anish Chander Sood. Arguments heard. Record perused. Admittedly, Anish Chander Sood, aged about 23 years, was unmarried and a student at the time of accident. Appellant Kamlesh Sood was a teacher in Saint Joseph High School, Sector 9, Chandigarh and was drawing salary of Rs.2600/- per month. The story, set up by the claimants is that the deceased was doing the tuition work appears to be concocted one. He himself was studying and F.A.O.No.136 of 1996 3 obtained the bachelor degree in Computer Engineering, therefore, it cannot be said that he was doing the tuition work. In any case, Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act referred to initiating all the proceedings for seeking compensation on account of the loss of estate which has to be seen in case of an unmarried son. Keeping in view the age of the parents of the deceased, the imponderable and other exigencies of life, the Tribunal assessed his notional income as Rs.5,000/- per annum. No doubt, in the absence of any evidence, it is difficult as to what the deceased was earning but in such cases the Tribunal should not feel itself handicapped in assessing the notional income keeping in view his education, the social strata from which he hails, the family status, the minimum wages, the living conditions and his future prospectus. The age of the parents in case of unmarried son and their normal expectancy of life are other additional factors to determine the notional income of the deceased, therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid parameters, the income of the deceased could not be determined less than Rs.6000/-per Annum. Thus, it would be in the fitness of things if compensation awarded to the claimant would be enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. It was observed in case Ramjan Khan and another versus Khuman and others 2006 ACJ 1490 that in case of student, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- could be awarded. Resultantly, this appeal is partly accepted and the impugned award is modified by enhancing compensation to the tune of Rs.39,000/- over and above the award amount alongwith interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of the amount. 23.04.2010 (A.N.Jindal) mamta-II Judge