Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the findings of the claims tribunal disbelieving the deceased being engineering student are not based on material which was on record. He submits that not only that the documents regarding educational loan of the deceased was produced, but specific statement was made regarding the same, but the claims tribunal has wrongly stated that merely producing statement of education loan would not prove this fact. He further submits that now before this Court an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC has been filed. Along with the said application mark sheets of the deceased Pawan Sabnani of B.E. 4th Semester, 5th Semester and 6th Semester have been filed which are undisputable. He further submits that the mark sheet of deceased would show that he was a student of B.E. Civil Engineering and was studying in the institute named Shri Yogendra Sagar Institute of Technology in Science, which was affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi Prodyogik Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the fact that the deceased was an engineering student, if taken to be correct for sake of arguments, still he was not a very bright student which is reflected from his mark sheets. Thus he submits that in any case assessment of income on notional basis at Rs.4000/- is correct and proper. He submits that there was no guarantee that the deceased would have completed his engineering looking to the marks he obtained in the semester for which the mark sheets have been enclosed.

12. Now considering the findings recorded by the claims tribunal in para 23 and 26 of the award it is seen that the claims tribunal has recorded in para 23 that Manohar Sabnani AW.1 (Late father of the deceased) in his examination - in - chief had stated that his son deceased was an student of Yogendra Sagar Institute of Technology in B.E. final year. It has also been recorded that the statement of education loan has been produced and after this the claims tribunal concluded only on the based of same it cannot be accepted that the deceased was a student of final year B.E. Engineering. Thus his income was taken at Rs.4000/- per month. The appellants have also stated that apart from studying deceased was working part time as supervisor and was earning Rs.16000/- per month. This assertion of the appellants has also been repelled by the claims tribunal and consequently it remain static on the notional income of Rs.4000/- per month for the deceased. In view of the fact NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16821 6 MA-1062-2015 that this Court has considered the mark sheets of the deceased which are of B.E. Civil Engineering issued by the very same institute which has been named by AW.1 in his examination - in - chief it is hereby held that the deceased was a student of engineering. Now as to the income of the deceased Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Singh @ Deepak Chauhan V/s. Mukesh & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC on-line SC 277 has considered this aspect of income of an engineering student. The Hon'ble Supreme Court recorded in Para 7 which reads as under :-

"7. While dealing with the claim of compensation of a similarly placed individual, i.e., a student in his twenties, this Court in Harpreet Singh (supra) 2 (2011) 1 SCC 343 took exception to equating the notional income of an Engineering student to that of an unskilled worker the following terms -

"13. But we do not think that the notional income of a student undergoing a Degree course in Engineering from a premier institute should be taken to be equivalent to the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled worker. Students recruited through campus interviews are atleast offered a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. Even if we do not go on the said basis, the High Court could have fixed the notional income atleast at Rs.10,000/- per month.