SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. BIHAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is by the Insurance Company against the award passed by the Tribunal granting a total compensation of Rs. 7,85,000/ - in respect of a person aged 21 years who was admittedly pursuing his studies in a Polytechnic, for obtaining a Diploma in the relevant field of Engineering. The contention is that the Tribunal has reckoned a notional monthly income of Rs. 5,000/ - and added 30%, referring to the ruling rendered by the Apex Court in Savita v/s. Bindar Singh ( : 2014 (2) KLT Suppl. 78 (SC) : : 2014 ACJ 1261) which according to the Insurance Company is not at all applicable to the case in hand and hence the challenge. The accident occurred was on 25.3.2012. The deceased, while riding a motor cycle, was knocked down by the mini lorry/mini pick up van bearing Reg. No. KL -55 -H -3063 driven, owned and insured by respondents 1 to 3 before the Tribunal; causing fatal injuries leading to his death. This was sought to be compensated by filing a claim petition preferred by the parents and siblings.

(2.) The evidence adduced before the Tribunal consists of Exts. A1 to A7. No evidence, either oral or documentary was adduced from the part of the respondents before the Tribunal. The policy stands admitted. The owner of the vehicle i.e., the second respondent did not turn up and was set ex parte. Negligence was disputed by the first respondent driver. Challenge raised by the Insurance Company was on general grounds, as no violation of the statutory/policy conditions was ever pointed out. After evaluation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident was solely because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the pick up van and proceeded to fix the compensation accordingly.

(3.) In the claim petition filed before the Tribunal, the case put up by the claimants was that the deceased was working as a Software Developer in a private institution with a monthly income of Rs. 10,000/ -. But the document produced from the part of the claimants by way of Ext. A5, revealed that he was pursuing studies in a Polytechnic. This according to the appellant was enough to hold that the deceased was not at all an employee having any income. Under this circumstance, there is absolutely no rhyme or to have reckoned a notional income of Rs. 5,000/ - per month for working out the loss of dependency. That apart, the ratio of the decision rendered by Supreme Court in Savita v/s. Bindar Singh ( : 2014 (2) KLT Suppl. 78 (SC) : : 2014 ACJ 1261) is not applicable to the case in hand, to have added 30% of the monthly income towards future prospects.