Case: Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi Vs. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma

The necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case with a view to determine whether the, Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi, the father of Raj (deceased) is entitled for relief as prayed in this appealOn 12.07.2002, Raj Ashvinbhai, the deceased was heading to Istanpur from Uttamnagar on his. While on his way, near Bhadvatnagar bus stand, a truck bearing registration. GQA 7215 belonging to the, Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma crashed into ther on which Raj was riding. Due to the force created by this accident,r slid for about 25 feet while Raj fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Thereupon he was taken to L.G. Hospital wherein he succumbed to his injuries. On the same day, a panchnama was filed before the Vatva Police Station, Ahmedabadt filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (in shortas compensation. The Tribunal ascertained the future income of the deceased atper month. 1/3rd of the monthly income was deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore,p.a.) was calculated for the loss of dependency to the parents of the deceased. Since the age of the deceased at the time of his death was 19 years, on applying the appropriate multiplier of 16, the total compensation towards loss of dependency was arrived at Rs.was awarded towards love and affection andtowards funeral expenses and thus a total compensation ofwas arrived at by the Tribunal. The Tribunal apportioned contributory negligence at 20% on the part of the deceased and 80% on the driver of the offending truck and thus, after making 20% deduction towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased the Tribunal awarded an amount ofBeing aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the4 of 2005 before the High Court for enhancement of compensation, whereas the 2nde Company preferred First Appeal5 of 2005 for the reduction of the compensation awarded by the TribunalAfter hearing the parties, the High Court affirmed the future income of the deceased atper month as determined by the Tribunal and deducted 50% towards personal expenses. It further held that the Tribunal had erred in considering the age of the deceased at the time of his death rather than the age of the parents for determination of multiplier, since they are the claimants in the case on hand, as per the guidelines laid down in Sarla VermaOrs. v. Delhi Transport Corporationby applying the appropriate multiplier of 13, the High Court determined the loss of dependency atas considered by the Tribunal. After examining the facts, evidence produced on record and circumstances of the case, the High Court was of the view that the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased was higher than 20%, however, it affirmed the contributory negligence as determined by the Tribunal. Therefore, after 20% deduction towards contributory negligence and addition towards other heads, the High Court, by its impugnedt and order awarded a compensation under all heads ofwith 9% interest per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the

Court's reasoning:
In our considered view, the deceased was 19 years old and was pursuing his medical degree with good marks at the time of the accident. With respect to the future income of students pursuing professional courses we refer to Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., wherein this Court held as under:14. On completion of Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) from the prestigious institute like B.I.T., it can be reasonably assumed that he would have got a good job. Thet has stated in his evidence that in the campus interview he was selected by Tata as well as Reliance Industries and was offered pay package of Rs. 3,50,000/per annum. Even if that is not accepted for want of any evidence in support thereof, there would not have been any difficulty for him in getting some decent job in the private sector. Had he decided to join government service and got selected, he would have been put in the pay scale for Assistant Engineer and would have at least earned Rs. 60,000/per annum. Wherever he joined, he had a fair chance of some promotion and remote chance of some high position. But uncertainties of life cannot be ignored taking relevant factors into consideration. In our opinion, it is fair and reasonable to assess his future earnings at Rs. 60,000/The Tribunal and the High Court have not taken into proper consideration that the deceased was a student of medicine at the time of the accident while determining his future income. The courts below have wrongly ascertained the future income of the deceased at onlyper month, which in our view is too less for a medical graduate these daysTherefore, the courts below have failed in following the principles laid down by this Court in this aspect in the above case. The deceased was a diligent and outstanding student of medicine who could have pursued his M.D. after his graduation and reached greater heights. Today, medical practice is one of the most sought after and rewarding professions. With the tremendous increase in demand for medical professionals, their salaries are also on the rise. Therefore, we have no doubt in ascertaining the future income of the deceased atFurther, deducting 1/3rd of the annual income towards personal expenses as per Oriental Insurancev. Deo Patodi and Ors, and applying the appropriate multiplier of 13, keeping in mind the age of the parent of the deceased, as per the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma case (supra), we arrive at a total loss of dependency atFurther, the Tribunal and the High Court have erred in not following the principles laid down by this Court in M. Mansoorv. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.in awarding a meagre sum of justunder the heads of loss of love and affection. Accordingly, we awardWith regard to the apportionment made by the Tribunal and the High Court, we are of the view, after considering the facts, evidence produced on record and circumstances of the case on hand, that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased. The courts below have failed to examine the facts of the case on hand with respect to the opinion of this Court given in Juju KuruvilaOrs. v. Kunjujamma MohanFrom the evidence produced on record, ther of the deceased was dragged up to a stretch of about5 feet on the road after the collision with the offending truck. We are of the considered view, that to be able to create this kind of enormous effect on ther of the deceased, the offending truck must have been travelling at a fairly high speed and that its driver did not have sufficient control over his vehicleThe driver of the offending truck should have been aware that he was driving the heavy motor vehicle and taken sufficient caution. We do not see any direct evidence that shows negligence on the part of the deceased that led to the accident. Therefore, as per the principles laid down by this Court in the case referred to above in this aspect, the contributory negligence apportioned by the courts below on the part of the deceased is set asideThe Tribunal and the High Court have further failed in awarding onlytowards funeral expenses instead ofaccording to the principles laid down by this Court in RajeshOrs. v. Rajbir Singht shall be entitled to compensation under the following heads:Thus, the total compensation payable to thewith interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment.