Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant was an Engineering student pursuing her 4 th semester at the time of accident. Notional income taken by the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- per month for computing the disability, is very low. It is also contended that the amount awarded towards bystander expenses as well as extra nourishment are low and hence he seeks for enhancement of compensation on the above heads.

8. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 254], Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi v. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma : (2015) 2 SCC 180, Basanti Devi and Ors. V. Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd. And Ors : 2022 ACJ 823 :

MANU/SC/1333/2021 to support his contentions.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that appellant claimed Rs.3,000/- as the monthly income. Hence there is no requirement to enhance the income. She would also contend that a just and reasonable compensation has already been awarded by the Tribunal and hence no interference is called for at the instance of this court.

10. The main issue is with regard to the assessment of the income of the appellant who was a student doing 4 th semester B.Tech Computer Science and Engineering course at the time of accident. Ext.A9 is the certificate issued by the Principal, Muslim Association College of Engineering, Venjaramoodu, Thiruvananthapuram. The Tribunal taken the income notionally as Rs.2,000/- per month for computing the disability. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the monthly income taken by the Tribunal is far below the actual income to be taken as far as an engineering student is concerned. Learned counsel in this context relies on Arvind Kumar Mishra referred above. That was a case of sustaining permanent disablement of 70% out of a motor accident to the claimant therein who was a final year mechanical engineering student in Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra (B.I.T.) at the time of accident occurred on 23.06.1993. He was examined himself and tendered some of the doctors who treated him in evidence. The Tribunal awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimant towards inconvenience, hardship, discomfort disappointment and mental stress throughout the life. A total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal against which the claimant approached the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi and High Court increased the amount of compensation from Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.3,50,000/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation the claimant approached the Apex Court. Paragraph 10 of the said judgment is relevant in this context to be extracted which reads thus:

11. The claimant in that case was a final year Engineering (Mechanical) student in a reputed college and he was a remarkably brilliant student having passed all his semester examinations in distinction. Due to the injuries out of the accident, he remained in coma for about two months and his studies got interrupted as he was moved to different hospitals for surgeries and other treatments. For many months his condition remained serious and his right hand was amputated and vision seriously affected. The multiple injuries ultimately led to 70% permanent disablement and he has rendered incapacitated and a career ahead of him in his chosen line of Mechanical Engineering got dashed for ever and he requires a domestic help throughout his life. He has been deprived of pecuniary benefits which he could have reasonably acquired had he not suffered permanent disablement to the extent of 70% in the accident. So, presuming that after completing the Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) from a prestigious institute like BIT, it can be assumed that he would have got a good job and during his evidence he deposed that he was selected in campus interview by Tata as well as Reliance Industries and offered pay package of Rs.3,50,000/- per annum. For want of evidence that was not accepted and it was found that even otherwise, it would have been difficult for him to get some decent job in private sector and 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 would have a fair chance of promotion and remote chance of some high position. Taking all those factors into account, Apex Court found it fair and reasonable to assess his future earnings at Rs.60,000/- per annum. Taking the salary and allowances payable to an Assistant Engineer in public employment as the basis and out of his future earnings 30% was discounted and estimated the multiplicand as Rs.42,000/- per annum and a multiplier of 18 was applied and the amount was fixed at Rs.7,56,000/- towards disability.

Fathimath Zuhara : 2016 ACJ 2742 :2016(3) KLT 459 :

2016 KHC 691 and ILR 2016(3) Kerala 431, Division Bench of this Court approved Rs.12,000/- as monthly income notionally taken by the Tribunal with respect to an Engineering student who lost life in an accident in 2005.

17. So, bearing in mind the above principles, the facts and circumstances of the present case has to be considered. At the time of accident, the appellant was 18 years old engineering student. The fact that she was doing 4th semester B.Tech Computer Science and Engineering at the time of accident is discernible from Ext.A9 and that fact is not seen disputed. Hence I find it just and reasonable to take the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.10,500/- per month.