Punjab-Haryana High Court
Virender And Others vs Manjeet And Others on 12 September, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.3676 of 2012 (O&M)
Virender and others
.....Appellants
Versus
Manjeet and others
......Respondents
AND
FAO No.3677 of 2012 (O&M)
Virender and others
.....Appellants
Versus
Manjeet and others
......Respondents
Date of Decision : September 12, 2013
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH
Present: Mr.M.S.Rana, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr.Ravinder Arora, Advocate
for respondent No.3 - Insurance Company.
NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)
This judgment shall dispose of aforesaid two appeals, that is, FAO No.3676 and 3677 of 2012, arising out of the common Award dated October 07, 2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (for short `the Tribunal').
2. On May 26, 2009 at about 8.00 pm, two brothers, namely; Saurabh and Gaurav, were going on their motorcycle bearing No.HR- 12J-5942. The motorcycle was being driven by Saurabh. When they reached near Malik Hospital, Rohtak-Delhi Bye-pass, a truck-trailer FAO No.3676 of 2012 (O&M) [2] bearing No.HR-38L-4923 (for short `the offending vehicle') came at a fast speed, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by Manjeet - respondent No.1, and hit the motorcycle from behind. Both the brothers suffered multiple injuries and died at the spot.
3. FIR No.240 dated May 26, 2009 (exhibit P3) was registered under Sections 304-A, etc. IPC in Police Station Urban Estate, Rohtak against the driver of the offending vehicle.
4. Post mortem examination was conducted on the dead bodies of Saurabh and Gaurav vide reports Exhibits P-10 and P-11, respectively.
5. Parents and grand-mother of the deceased filed separate claim applications under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal assessed the expected income of the deceased as Rs.7000/- per month and awarded compensation of Rs.6,98,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, in each case.
6. By filing the instant appeals, the claimants have challenged the Award seeking enhancement of compensation.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that per the record, both the deceased were students of Engineering (B.Tech). Saurabh was student of V.T.I.(Engineering College), Rohtak, while, Gaurav was pursuing his studies in Matu Ram Institute of Engineering and Management (Jat College), Rohtak. They were in their eighteens.
8. The academic record of Saurab shows that he secured 70% marks in matriculation examination and 66% in Senior Secondary examination, whereas, Gaurav secured 67% marks and 64% in these examinations, respectively. Vijay (PW1), an official of Matu Ram Institute of Engineering and Management, Rohtak, on the basis of the record, brought by him, deposed that Gaurav, aged about 17 years and 9 months (Per Admission Form Exhibit P2, date of birth is 25.9.2991), was student of Ist year of B.Tech.(Computer Science). Similarly, Ram FAO No.3676 of 2012 (O&M) [3] Chander Mittal (PW4), Superintendent of Vaish Engineering College deposed that Saurabh aged about 18 years and 7 months (Per Admission Form Exhibit P5, date of birth is 30.11.1990) was student of IInd Semester of B.Tech.(Electronics). This all shows that both the deceased had bright future, but, unfortunately, they lost their lives untimely due to negligence of Manjeet.
9. This Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Surinder Singh and others, 2012(3) RCR (Civil) 991, wherein, the deceased was a student of Civil Engineer (Diploma), observed as under:-
nd "5. Admittedly, the deceased was a student of 2 year, Civil Engineer (Diploma). He was 18 years of age. He was stated to be the only son of his parents. Though, there is no straightjacket formula to quantify the income of the deceased, however, certain objective factors could always be taken into consideration while deciding the compensation. In the present case, the deceased was 18 years of age, he had a good academic record, on the basis of which, he was admitted in the Civil Engineering (Diploma Course) and in fact, had passed the first year and thus, it would be safely assumed that the deceased was a bright student. The deceased was in the process of acquiring a professional degree, for which there is always a demand in the market."
In the case of Surinder Singh supra, the deceased was a student of Diploma in Engineering, whereas, in the case in hand, deceased were students of Bachelor Degree in Engineering. A degree is higher professional qualification than a Diploma in any field.
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra vs. New India Assurance Company, (2010) 10 SCC 254, wherein, an Engineering Student was injured in a vehicular accident, occurred in the year 1993, determined the income of the injured at Rs.5000/- per month. Taking note of this judgment, where, expected salary of an engineering student was determined as Rs.5000/- in the year 1993, this Court in Rekha Rani w/o Kishore Kumar and another vs. Ranjit Singh s/o FAO No.3676 of 2012 (O&M) [4] Darbara Singh, 2012 (4) PLR 553, determined the income of an engineering student as Rs.10,000/- per month in the year 2010 and awarded compensation of Rs.9,50,000/- on account of his death.
11. As observed above both the deceased in the case in hand were brilliant students. A prosperous future was awaiting them but their lives were tragically cut short. On facts and circumstances, the law discussed is attracted in their cases with full force.
12. In view of above factual and legal position and also in the considered opinion of this Court, it would be just and proper if the claimants are held entitled to Rs.9,50,000/- as compensation, in each case.
13. Accordingly, the appeals are partly allowed and the Award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled to Rs.9,50,000/-, in each case, that is, Rs.2,52,000/- (9,50,000-6,98,000) over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The interest on the enhanced amount of Rs.2,52,000/- shall be paid from the date of filing claim application till the amount was deposited by the Insurance Company under the impugned Award at the same rate of interest as was awarded by the Tribunal.
September 12, 2013 ( NAWAB SINGH ) `gian' JUDGE