Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 51 (JK)

Jawahar Lal Bhat v. Sukh Chain Singh

2009-02-06

SUNIL HALI

body2009
1. The appellants have lost their only son in a tragic road accident which took place on 5-10-1998 at Janipur, Jammu. Appellants preferred claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu. The Tribunal after hearing the parties and analyzing the evidence produced, awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,72,000/- plus Rs. 5,000/- as funeral charges. The claimants were not satisfied with this award and have challenged the same before this Court. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The deceased was a student of 3rd year MBBS course and it is revealed from the record that he was brilliant student and came from the respectable middle class family. He was selected for the MBBS course after having successfully qualified the entrance examination. The academic career of the deceased was brilliant. He was expected to do well in the studies and also in his profession. His future prospects were good looking at his academic background. He could have easily procured his employment on the basis of merit. The statement of Dr. A.K. Jad reveals that he would get pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/- per month. The Tribunal has wrongly assessed his income at Rs. 2,000/- per month. 4. Death of a dear one in the family causes a lot of pain and anguish to its members and dead person could not be brought back. The family can be compensated by awarding damages. Many factors have to be considered before awarding compensation in such cases. The deceased in the present case was a 3rd year student of MBBS course. He was a brilliant student and had obtained admission in the Medical College by way of competitive examination. 5. It is a matter of common knowledge that once a student is admitted to a professional college then he would come out after getting the professional degree. The deceased would have become a doctor after coming out from the college and could get minimum pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/-, which a doctor gets after his appointment in the State Government. It is also expected that he would have studied further. Measures of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and the attending peculiar or special features, if any. 8,000-13,500/-, which a doctor gets after his appointment in the State Government. It is also expected that he would have studied further. Measures of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and the attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of just compensation which is the pivotal consideration. The determination of damages for loss of human life, is an extremely difficult task and it becomes all the more baffling when the deceased is a child and or a non-earning person. The future of a child is uncertain. He only has a prospect to earn his future. Applying this to the present case, the deceased admittedly was unemployed but had a certain future. He was in all probabilities to become a doctor and it could not be said that his future was uncertain. What would he earn after the completion of graduation, cannot be merely a guess work. But while applying principles of determination of just compensation, we have to adopt probable standards in determining the job. In all the likelihood he would start from the minimum pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/- per month, which is the basic grade of a doctor. 6. The next question is what were the expectations of the claimants from the deceased. It is not in dispute that he was only son of his parents and their expectancy and dependency was only on him. No doubt his father is a Government employee and was to retire from the service after 8 years from the date his son was died. It is necessary that the reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit should be entertained by the person who sues. It is quite true that the existence of this expectation is an interference of fact. 7. The Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2000 ACJ 524. It was a case of the Engineering student who had died in a road accident. The income of the deceased was assessed Rs. 2,000/- and by applying the multiplier of 16 and about Rs. 2,22,000/- was awarded. 8. The above referred judgment covers the case of the Engineering student, who after passing out from the college was expected to earn minimum of Rs. 2,000/- per month. The income of the deceased was assessed Rs. 2,000/- and by applying the multiplier of 16 and about Rs. 2,22,000/- was awarded. 8. The above referred judgment covers the case of the Engineering student, who after passing out from the college was expected to earn minimum of Rs. 2,000/- per month. This inference drawn in assessing the damages can be distinguished in the present case. 9. This assessment was not based on some facts, but probable inference was drawn in assessing the annual income. The present case can be distinguished from it. The deceased was a brilliant student and was in 3rd year MBBS course and was expected to complete his graduation. The minimum start for a doctor will be Rs.8,000/- per month. The court while assessing the annual income of a person, who is unemployed at the time of death, can only consider the future prospects of the deceased. The professional course, which he was undergoing had probable chance of getting employment. These inferences can be drawn only on the basis that the person after completion of graduation, is expected to be gainfully employed. It is expected that after the completion of the graduation, deceased would be gainfully employed. The deceased during his academic career was awarded various scholarships. He was awarded national scholarship under National Scholarship Scheme by the Central Education Ministry in the year 1987. He was also awarded Science Talent Promotion Scholarship. The claimants have specifically pleaded that the future prospect of their only son in advancement in life and career, was bright. 10. It is further pleaded that the deceased would have been in higher salary bracket in the years to come. He would have completed his MD/MS as a consequence of which his pay bracket would substantially increase. 11. I, accordingly, hold that the notional income of the deceased would be Rs. 4,000/- per month. The Tribunal has applied multiplier of 17 which is on the higher side. While applying the multiplier, the age of the dependants and claimants has to be the basis for doing the same on the said date. As revealed from the record, the age of the claimant No. 1 was 52 years and claimant No.2 was 47 year old. The multiplier in this case would be applied on the basis of age of claimant No.2 who stated to be 47 years. 12. As revealed from the record, the age of the claimant No. 1 was 52 years and claimant No.2 was 47 year old. The multiplier in this case would be applied on the basis of age of claimant No.2 who stated to be 47 years. 12. I, therefore, direct that instead of 17, multiplier of 13 be applied in the present case. Accordingly, a compensation of Rs. 4,20,000/- is payable to the appellants instead of Rs. 2,72,000/- as worked out by the Tribunal. I also award damages on account of pain and suffering to the claimants to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. The funeral expenses are already awarded by the Tribunal are confirmed. The claimants are entitled to Rs. 4,70,000/- as compensation. 13. This appeal is allowed to the extent hereinabove. Claimants are also entitled to receive the interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of filing of claim petition.