Divisional ControllerMaharashtra State RoadTransport CorporationDivision Office, At Aurangabad v. Govind

3CORAM :AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.RESERVED ON :16TH OCTOBER, 2025PRONOUNCED ON:29TH OCTOBER, 2025JUDGMENT :- (Per Court).Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and awarddated 31.12.2015, passed by the learned Member, MotorAccident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad in Motor AccidentClaim Petition No.241 of 2015, the original respondentno.1/M.S.R.T.C. is in appeal under Section 173 of the MotorVehicles Act, 1988.So also, feeling dissatisfied with the quantum ofcompensation, the claimants in the claim petition are beforethis Court seeking enhancement in the compensation videCross Objection No.200 of 2025.Since the grievance in both the proceedings iscommon i.e. “quantum : either excess or deficit” respectively,both the matters are heard together and decided vide thiscommon judgment and order.Parties are referred to as per their “factual status”for the sake of convenience.FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025

42. Moot points for consideration : (i)Applicability of future prospects to deemed income;(ii)Interest of future prospect;(iii)Ascertaining income of a student of professional course;(iv)Method to assess age of the deceased and appreciation of evidence to that effect.3. Facts in brief: 3.1One Ganesh Wagh was proceeding on his bike on25.02.2015 on Sillod-Aurangabad road at bout 07:00 p.m. Apassenger bus owned by M.S.R.T.C. driven by respondent no.4in the First Appeal dashed the said bike, to which bikernamely Ganesh Wagh succumbed. Deceased Ganesh was ameritorious student prosecuting his final year studies in thecourse of M.B.B.S. at Government Medical College,Aurangabad. The claimants lodged the claim for grant ofcompensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988.FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025

53.2Upon hearing both the parties, the learnedTribunal held that the Bus driver was responsible to cause theaccident. As such, full liability of accident was imposed on thebus driver.3.3So far as quantum is concern, the claimantsexamined one Dr. Umeshkumar Shahane (CW-2) at Exhibit-31 to prove the probable income of the deceased which hecould earn soon after clearing M.B.B.S. course. Dr. Shahanehad been classmate of the deceased Ganesh and was earningRs.56,540/- per month salary as Medical Officer in ESISHospital. Appointment order and salary slip of Dr. Shahanewas proved.3.4Placing reliance on the evidence tendered by Dr.Shahane, the claimants averred that income of deceasedGanesh be held atleast @ Rs.56,000/- per month.3.5It seems that the MSRTC opposed such argumentand submitted that income of deceased Ganesh Wagh cannotbe assumed so high considering the state of uncertainty in thelife of a person.FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025

63.6Upon hearing both the parties, the learnedTribunal formed opinion that merely because Dr. Shahane wasclassmate of deceased Ganesh and was getting salary ofRs.56,540/- per month, it cannot be said that deceasedGanesh would also have earned the same job and same salary.Learned Member of the Tribunal opined that it would be fairand reasonable if income of the deceased could be held asRs.35,000/- per month.3.7As such, holding income of the deceased@Rs.35,000/- per month, granting 50% of it towards ‘FutureProspects’ the annual income of the deceased was held@Rs.6,30,000/-. 50 % of the income was deducted towardspersonal expenses, as the deceased was a bachelor. Although,the Aadhaar Card and SSC/HSC certificate of the deceasedGanesh were on record showing his age as 24, the learnedTribunal held his age at 27 years referring to the Post MortemReport and Inquest Panchnama. Hence, applying multiplier ofM-17, the learned Tribunal fixed the loss of dependency@Rs.53,55,000/-. The learned Tribunal added Rs.1,00,000/-towards loss of love and affection and conventional expensesRs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses.FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025 7As such, the final compensation arrived@Rs.54,80,000/- inclusive of compensation payable under NoFault Liability.4. Moot points raised by the parties :4.1MSRTC would object that Ld. Tribunal ought notto have added the component of ‘Future Prospects’ in theincome of the deceased as his income was held on notionalbasis.4.2MSRTC also objects that interest could not havebeen applied on the ‘Future Prospects’.4.3Claimants raised grievance that Ld. Tribunalerred in holding income of the deceased on lower side. That,in view of the evidence tendered, Ganesh’s income ought tohave been held atleast @ Rs.56,000/- p.m.4.4Claimants also object that Ld. Tribunal appliedmultiplier M-17 instead of M-18 without considering theevidence on record showing correct age of the deceased.Both the parties while justifying their respectiveobjections, also countered each-other’s too.FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025

85.Points framed:On the basis of the objections raised by therespective sides, I frame following points for consideration:5.1Whether Ld. Tribunal is justified in adding Future Prospects while computing the Award?Yes5.2Whether Ld. Tribunal is justified in applying interest on Future Prospects?Yes 5.3Whether Ld. Tribunal is justified in applying multiplier of M-17 instead of M-18?No.5.4Whether income of the deceased needs to be held on higher side, and whether the compensation has to be enhanced? Yes5.5What order? As per final order. Now I shall deal on each point of objectionrecording the debate advanced by both the Ld.Counsels forthe respective parties. The parties have taken me to the recordand proceeding to convince their arguments. Discussion & findings5.1 Addition of Future Prospects: 5.1.1.Smt. Ranjana Reddy, learned Advocate for theMSRTC has strong objection to the application of ‘FutureProspects’ in the present case. She would further submit thatthe deceased falls from the category of non earning personswho had no established income.FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025 9She would refer to the findings rendered by theHon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National InsuranceCompany Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, reported in 2017 SCCOnline SC 12710 at its paragraph nos.59.3 and 59.4, whichare reproduced as follows:59.3.While determining the income, an additionof 50% of actual salary to the income of thedeceased towards future prospects, where thedeceased had a permanent job and was below theage of 40 years, should be made. The additionshould be 30%, if the age of the deceased wasbetween 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased wasbetween the age of 50 to 60 years, the additionshould be 15%. Actual salary should be read asactual salary less tax.59.4.In case the deceased was self-employed oron a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of theestablished income should be the warrant wherethe deceased was below the age of 40 years. Anaddition of 25% where the deceased was betweenthe age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where thedeceased was between the age of 50 to 60 yearsshould be regarded as the necessary method ofcomputation. The established income means theincome minus the tax component.5.1.2Smt. Reddy, learned Advocate was at pains toconvince me that in view of the clear wording in PranaySethi’s case (supra), the concept of Future Prospects could beapplicable only in respect of the persons who have establishedincome.FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025

105.1.3She would submit that as the deceased was nothaving any income, and as the learned Tribunal has held hisincome on notional basis. Future Prospects could not havebeen applied in this case. She would refer one judgmentrendered by High Court of Allahabad, reported in LAWS(All-2023-5-223). However, upon appraising her that the facts inthe cited case and the present one are absolutelydistinguishable, Smt. Reddy, would fairly submit thatalthough she has cited this judgment, it may not be useful asfacts in both the cases are different. With this argument, Smt.Reddy, learned Advocate would submit that the FutureProspects ought not to have applied in this case. 5.1.4Mr. Mohit Deshmukh learned Advocate for theclaimants supports the finding of the learned Tribunal bywhich the learned Tribunal has added the component ofFuture Prospects while computing the compensation. Heobjects that in ‘Pranay Sethi’ case (supra) the Hon. SupremeCourt held only the persons whose income is established, tobe entitled for Future Prospects. Mr. Deshmukh would refer tothe Paragraph No.55 in ‘Pranay Sethi’s judgment which isreproduced as follows:-FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025 11“55.Section 168 of the Act deals with theconcept of “Just compensation” and the same hasto be determined on the foundation of fairness,reasonableness and equitability on acceptablelegal standard because such determination cannever be in arithmetical exactitude. It can neverbe perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptabledegree of proximity to arithmetical precision onthe basis of materials brought on record in anindividual case. The conception of “justcompensation” has to be viewed through theprism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability. In a caseof death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannotexpect a windfall. Simultaneously, thecompensation granted cannot be an apology forcompensation. It cannot be a pittance. Thoughthe discretion vested in the tribunal is quite wide,yet it is obligatory on the part of the tribunal tobe guided by the expression, that is, “justcompensation”. The determination has to be onthe foundation of evidence brought on record asregards the age and income of the deceased andthereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied.The formula relating to multiplier has beenclearly stated in Sarla Verma and it has beenapproved in Reshma Kumari. The age andincome, as stated earlier, have to be establishedby adducing evidence. The tribunal and thecourts have to bear in mind that the basicprinciple lies in pragmatic computation which isin proximity to reality. It is a well-accepted normthat money cannot substitute a life lost but aneffort has to be made for grant of justcompensation having uniformity of approach.There has to be a balance between the twoextremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, abonanza and the modicum. In such anadjudication, the duty of the tribunal and thecourts is difficult and hence, an endeavor hasbeen made by this Court for standardizationFA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025 12which in its ambit includes addition of futureprospects on the proven income at present. As faras future prospects are concerned, there has beenstandardization keeping in view the principle ofcertainty, stability and consistency. We approvethe principle of “standardization” so that aspecific and certain multiplicand is determinedfor applying the multiplier on the basis of age”With this, Mr. Mohit Deshmukh would submitthat it would be inappropriate to discriminate different classesof persons while applying the Future Prospects component.Mr. Deshmukh would however fairly submit that the correctfuture prospects would be 40%, but not 50% as the income ofthe deceased Ganesh Wagh was not to be considered as afixed salaried income.5.1.5 My findings: (a)Future Prospects is not any allowance nor anyadd-on benefit depending upon any qualification. Indeed its aprinciples of ‘standardization’ in view of Certainty, Stabilityand Consistency. Application of Future Prospects asintroduced by the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of ‘PranaySethi’ can not be confined only in respect of particular class ofpersons unlike argued by the MSRTC. FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025 13The logic and analogy applied in ‘Pranay Sethi’case is not at all narrow to restrict benefit of Future Prospectsto a particular class of persons. In ‘Pranay Sethi’ the Hon.Supreme Court has clarified that “The established incomemeans the income minus the tax component” (emph.).I don’t accept the argument advanced by Smt.Reddy that ‘persons with established income’ is a privilegedcategory entitle for the benefit of Future Prospects component.(b)A profitable reference could be made to the viewexpressed by the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of KavitaNagar and Others Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd(Civil Appeal No. 10632 of 2024) Their Lordships have heldthat there cannot be discrimination in the categories of theclaimants to deny or apply the component of Future Prospects.The relevant paragraphs in the case of Kavita Nagar arereproduced as follows: 14.The need to factor in future prospects whendetermining compensation becomes even clearerand more pressing when considering the basichuman drive to sustain and improve one’s life. Aself-employed individual, just like someone on afixed salary,strives to increase their income tomeet growing expenses and to adapt to changingcircumstances. This is particularly importantFA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025 14when considering the purchasing power andquality of life, which tend to increase as aperson’s career progresses. The notion that a self-employed person’s income will remain static isflawed, as they, too, make efforts to raise theirfees or charges to keep pace with inflation andmarket demands. For instance, someone workingin a government role or another fixed-income jobmight receive annual salary adjustments orbenefits,reflecting a growth trajectory over time.Similarly, a self-employed professional—such as adoctor, lawyer,or small business owner—willoften increase fees or expand services to keeppace with rising costs. Recognizing these futureprospects ensures a fair and just compensation byaligning with real-world economic dynamics,which Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988seeks to uphold.15. This drive to improve one’s income isuniversal,regardless of the employment status,and should be reflected in the compensationcalculations for motor accident claims. As theprecedent in the quoted judgment suggests, it isunjust to disregard future prospects solely basedon the perceived static nature of the income.Instead, a degree-test should be applied,accounting for factors like age, career growth,and economic conditions, ensuring faircompensation that reflects the individual’s trueearning potential over time.Thus, it is no more in res integra that the FutureProspects are to be given in every death case irrespective ofthe category of the claimant i.e. earning, non earning,established income, non established income, etc.FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025 15(c)In Kirti and Another Vs Oriental InsuranceCompany reported at (2021) 2 SCC 166, a Three Judge Benchof the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the issue ofentitlement of future prospects in a claim on account of thedeath of a homemaker who is a non earning member. It ispertinent to note that applying the principles laid down by theConstitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), the Apex Courtapplied future prospects at 40%. (d)As such, I hold the learned Tribunal is absolutelyjustified in adding Future Prospects while computing thecompensation. Rather, exclusion to add Future Prospectswould result in grave miscarriage of justice. Howeverconsidering that the compensation is being granted ondeemed income of the deceased, the Future Prospects wouldbe @ 40%, but not 50% as correctly pointed out by Mr. MohitDeshmukh, ld. Advocate for the claimants.FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025

165.2 Interest of Future Prospects:- 5.2.1Smt. Reddy Ld. Advocate for the MSRTC objectsthat interest on the Future Prospects cannot be granted. Shewould submit that the Future Prospects itself is such incomewhich is not in existence nor ever existed, interest may not beapplied over the Future Prospects.5.2.2Mr. Mohit Deshmukh Ld. Counsel representingthe Claimants would however submit that it has been clarifiedby the Hon. Supreme Court that the Future Prospects has beenheld as part and parcel of the income of the deceased on theprinciples of Standardization. As such, interest must beapplied even on the Future Prospects.5.2.3 My findings: (a)Once the Future Prospects is to be added in theincome of the deceased, the interest would equally beapplicable on such income. An objection to the application ofinterest on Future Prospects won’t survive in the light of theview taken by the Hon. Supreme court in the case of OrientalInsurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika and Ors., [2025INSC 822] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directedthat the entire award amount as to be paid with interest. FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025 17The entire award necessarily meant thecomponent of Future Prospects too. As such, the objection ofthe MSRTC on the point of interest on Future Prospects alsocannot be sustained.As such I find that compensation granted for thecomponent of Future Prospects would also carry interest. TheLd. Tribunal has not committed any error while grantinginterest even on the future prospects. 5.3 Multiplier: Both the parties have different objections on thepoint of ‘Multiplier’ which are dealt as follows. 5.3.1Smt. Reddy, learned Advocate submits thatmultiplier has to be corresponding to the age of the parents,but not corresponding to the age of the deceased. She wouldsubmit that the age of Claimants or Deceased, whicheverhigher has to be considered for fixing the multiplier. 5.3.2To answer this objection, Mr. Mohit Deshmukh,learned Advocate placed reliance upon a judgment and orderrendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of HareshShantilal Avlani and Anr. Vs. New India Assurance CompanyFA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025 18Ltd., reported in (2024) 13 SCC 452, wherein the Hon’bleSupreme Court approved the age of the deceased to fix themultiplier in the case of death of a bachelor. A profitablereference to the paragraph no.5 of the said judgment can bemade, which is reproduced as follows:“5.We are, therefore, of the opinion that it is the ageof the deceased which ought to be taken intoconsideration and not the age of the dependants forarriving at the multiplier and the High Court has erredin returning findings to the effect that the age ofdependents of the deceased ought to be the relevantconsideration for arriving at the choice of themultiplier.”As such, I agree with the proposition that its theage of the deceased that is to be considered for fixing themultiplier even in the case of a Bachelor. As such the objectionby the MSRTC does not stand well in view of the prevailinglaw. 5.3.3On the other hand, Mr. Mohit Deshmukh, learnedAdvocate for claimants would submit that while copies of theSSC certificate and Aadhaar Card pertaining to the deceasedGanesh Wagh was placed on record by the claimants vide alist of document which was exhibited, the learned Tribunalought not to have adopted extremely mechanical approach torely upon the Inquest Panchnama and the Post Mortem report.FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025

195.3.4Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate would submitthat it was incumbent on the part of the learned Tribunal toexamine the documents on record and to fix appropriatemultiplier corresponding to the age of the deceased. He wouldsubmit that while documents showing exact age of thedeceased are on record and while the ld. Tribunal could havecalled upon the concern parties for further explanation, ifwanted, the learned Tribunal must not to have relied upon theInquest Panchnama and Post Mortem report. 5.3.5Mr. Deshmukh would submit that considering thedate of birth of the deceased appearing on both thesedocuments i.e. 04.05.1990, Ganesh Wagh’s age was 24 years09 month 21 days at the time of his death. Mr. Deshmukh,learned Advocate would further submit that, had the learnedTribunal held the age as ‘24 instead of 27’, the correctmultiplier would be M-18, but not M-17.5.3.6Smt. Ranjana Reddy would find no reason todeny that the documents i.e. SSC certificate and the AadhaarCard of deceased Ganesh Wagh were part of record before thelearned Tribunal.FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025 20She would fairly submit that there may not bereason to disbelieve those documents considering its nature,yet she adds that the learned Tribunal was justified in notreferring such documents as they were not proved in dueprocess.5.3.7 My findings:- (a)With able assistance of both the Advocates, I havegone through the Record and Proceeding of the case in hand. Ifind that a list of document has been filed under the signatureof the claimant no.1 and his Advocate on 13.04.2015, whichconsists acknowledgment seal and signature of theSuperintendent Judicial (Civil) District Court, Aurangabad.The list contains 13 documents including First InformationReport, Inquest panchnama, Post Mortem Report, SpotPanchnama, S.T. bus papers, License of S.T. bus driver, AAform, original HSC certificate, SSC certificate, Original MBBS1st year Mark Memo, Original MBBS 2nd year Mark Memo,original MBBS 3rd year Mark Memo and Aadhaar Card of thedeceased. It seems that the list of documents is exhibited, thedocuments enlisted with the list are given pagination. TheCertified copies are given Exhibit number. FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025 21Original HSC certificate and original MBBS 1st to3rd year markmemos are given Exhibit numbers. The restdocuments are not given Exhibit numbers, however there isalso no endorsement U/O XIII Rule 3 & 6 of Civil ProcedureCode on such other documents. (b)It reveals that the ld. Tribunal relied upon InquestPanchnama and Post Mortem report which were filed togetherwith the same documents under the same list of documents.Pertinent to note, the Inquest Panchanama contain age of thedeceased as ‘approximately 27 ( vankts 27 o”kZ ) However, itdidn’t consider the other documents produced by theClaimants to record the age of the deceased i.e. SSC/HSCcertificates or the Aadhaar Card. There could be no debate that its for theplaintiff/claimant to comply Order XIII Rule 1 of the CivilProcedure Code. However, agreeing that some documentswere not relied because those were in the form of copies,instead of adopting conventional approach to discard thosevital documents at threshold, ‘it would have been just &appropriate to call upon the claimants to produceoriginals/certified copy of the age supporting documents,FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025 22particularly SSC certificate’ since its “An Inquiry” in the natureof summary trial. The SSC Certificate i.e. Matriculation certificate isheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as a Public Document.Reference can be made to the case of “Rishipal Singh SolankiVs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported at (2022) 8 SCC 602”. In fact looking to the nature of the documents i.e.particularly the ‘SSC certificate’, and while the MSRTC hasnot disputed those particular documents, even procedureunder Rule 3-A of Order XII of Civil Procedure Code couldhave been placed into service. This is what exactly expected tobe done meaningfully while dealing with such Trial whichinfact is an Inquiry. The law provides ways to make profitableuse of such public document in such Inquiry by takingrecourse to available legal provisions to make them admissiblein evidence and to look into. (c)Technically Ld. Tribunal is certainly not at fault.But its the high time one has to exercise realistic approach onthis point.In my opinion Post Mortem Report or InquestPanchnama is not at all dependable as regards to age becauseit merely put approximate age.FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025 23If more than one document are on record fromwhich one fact (age as in present case) has to be ascertained,the document which is more beneficial for the claimants hasto be considered by the Ld. Tribunals. For that, its for thecourts and Tribunals to implement the provisions and theprocedure meaningfully and proactively. As I observed, its an‘Inquiry’ and not a routine suit. This is because its abenevolent and social beneficial legislation.(d) Its trite law that the rules of Strict Evidence mustnot be insisted while dealing with cases arising out of SocialBeneficial Legislation. For fiddling technicalities which couldhave been resolved by adopting appropriate legal recourse,the claimants must not be left to suffer injustice. Consideringthis is a beneficial legislation and a summary trial, in thepeculiar facts of the case I deem it just to hold that the correctage of the deceased Ganesh ought to be held 24 years 09months 21 days on the d/o accident, instead of approximate27 years. Its particularly when the MSRTC has fairly andseriously not disputed the SSC Certificates- and also Aadharcard of the deceased. As such, in view of the prevailing lawthe correct multiplier would have been ‘M-18’, but not ‘M-17’.FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025 24(e)This feel it appropriate to record that, whilecomputing the award Ld. Tribunals must adopt a disciplinedyardstick to apply the correct multiplier. A compensationclaim is an Inquiry and a piece of social beneficial legislation.The object of this legislation is to provide ‘Just & Proper’compensation to the deserving claimants.Needless to mention, in the prevailing era almosteverybody’s age or date of birth is identifiable/noticeable at-least on one document e.g. Adhar card, PAN card, drivinglicense,school record, some identity cards issued byState/Central Govts. etc. Then Ld. Tribunals bearing in mindthat its an ‘Inquiry’, must call upon the Claimant side toproduce on record either of such document to consider theage of the deceased. It won’t be incorrect to observe thatthere would be hardly any person in the present epoch wherethere is absolutely no record of age / date of birth of such one.Reliance upon the Inquest Panchanama or Post mortem reportis an archaic method to consider the age of deceased, wherethere was absolutely no availability of a least minimumevidence of deceased’s age. FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025 25Instead of adopting a mechanical way of referringto Post Mortem report or Inquest Panchanama which merelypredict the age of the deceased, its high time to switch onproactive mode and to call upon the Claimant side to produceadequate evidence indicating the age of deceased. This can bedone even while issuing notice on Exhibit-1 which would bemeaningful for early & ‘less controversial disposal’ of the claimpetitions as also for early settlement of claim.(f)This is for the obvious reason that even a tenuouserror in applying multiplier relying upon Post Mortem reportor Inquest Panchanama, results either in “injustice to theclaimants or prejudice to public exchequer” which leads tounnecessary litigation. Ascertaining age of the deceased orvictim as the case may be, is not merely a formality but apivotal action to fix the ‘Just & Proper’ compensation. Ajudicial note is taken that number of First Appeals arepreferred and pending from both sides predominantly againstapplication of incorrect multiplier. When fixing a multiplier iswell guided, there is no room to cause even a minor ‘here &there’ while applying the multiplier. FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025

265.4 INCOME of the deceased : 5.4.1So far as, the income of the deceased isconsidered, Mr. Mohit Deshmukh, ld.Advocate has takenme to the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inthe case of Kirti (supra). Mr. Deshmukh relying upon paragraph 17 to 19would submit that particularly, so far as death case of studentsis concern, the course they are studying, their academicproficiency, their family background, etc., would assist todetermine and fix what they could earn in future. The relevantparagraphs are reproduced as follows:17.There are two distinct categories ofsituations wherein the court usually determinesnotional income of a victim. The first category ofcases relates to those wherein the victim wasemployed, but the claimants are not able to proveher actual income, before the court. In such asituation, the court “guesses” the income of thevictim on the basis of the evidence on record, likethe quality of life being led by the victim and herfamily, the general earning of an individualemployed in that field, the qualifications of thevictim, and other considerations.18.The second category of cases relates tothose situations wherein the Court is called uponto determine the income of a non-earning victim,such as a child, a student or a homemaker.Needless to say, compensation in such cases isextremely difficult to quantify.FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025

2719.The court often follows different principlesfor determining the compensation towards a non-earning victim in order to arrive at an amountwhich would be just in the facts andcircumstances of the case. Some of these involvethe determination of notional income. Whenevernotional income is determined in such cases,different considerations and factors are taken intoaccount. For instance, for students, the courtoften considers the course that they are studying,their academic proficiency, the familybackground, etc. to determine and fix what theycould earn in the future. (See M.R. KrishnaMurthi V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.)5.4.2It is noteworthy that the Hon’ble Supreme Courtreferred to and relied upon its earlier judgment in the case ofM.R. Krishnamurti Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited,reported in (2020) 15 SCC 493. Then Mr. Deshmukh, learnedAdvocate for the claimants relies upon a case of AshvinbhaiJayantilal Modi Vs. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma and Anr,reported in (2015) 2 SCC 180. Mr. Deshmukh, learnedAdvocate would urge that it was a case of death of a studentprosecuting medical studies. He further submits that it was adeath of 2002, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has heldincome of the deceased @Rs.25,000/-.FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025 28In another death case of a medical student i.e.Bishnupriya Panda Vs. Basanti Manjari Mohanty and Anr,wherein it was held that while the accident was of 2013, theHon’ble Supreme Court approved the finding of the HighCourt of Orissa, wherein income of the deceased was held@Rs.50,000/- per month. Worth to note in this case, theHon’ble Supreme Court has approved application of theFuture Prospects in the compensation.5.4.3As such, Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for theclaimants would submit that the argument of the claimantsbefore the learned Tribunal to hold income of the deceased@Rs.56,000/- per month ought to have been considered.Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate would submit that in viewof the facts stated above and the law cited, the claimantsdeserve enhancement in the compensation.5.4.4Smt. Ranjana Reddy, learned Advocate for theM.S.R.T.C. would however supported the findings of thelearned Tribunal on income of the deceased. She wouldvehemently submit that considering the uncertainty of job, Ld.Tribunal has rightly rejected claimants’ prayer to holddeceased’s income @ Rs.56,000/- p.m.FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025

295.4.5 My findings: - (a)Certainly, there was no income proof of deceasedGanesh Wagh. He was a final year medical student.The typical notional income concept can not be applied insuch case. Hence this case needs to be judged in the light ofthe law developed by various judgments rendered by the Hon.Supreme Court.There are certain categories of persons whoseincome can not be assessed with any tangible evidence viz aviz : (i) Persons who are not in earning state of life e.g. minors,too old persons etc.;(ii) those who are in earning state of life but can’t be said tobe employed & earning thereby, yet who contribute theirfamilies e.g. housewives/Persons having no direct income;(iii) those who are in earning state of life but don’t have anytangible proof of income or those whose income is uncertainetc. masons, labors etc.;(iv) those who has some suggestive proof of job but don’t havetangible proof of income e.g. drivers, shopkeepers, vendorsetc.; and(v) those who are not in earning state of life but have strongpotentials to earn in view of their qualification, education,experience, profile etc.FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025 30(b)In the case of ‘Laxmi Devi and ors. Vs.Mohammad Tabbar and ors.’ reported at ‘2008 (12) SCC165’, the Hon. Supreme Court took exception to the Schedule-II to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. Hon.Supreme Court held income of the deceased in that case @ Rs.3000/- p.m. notionally. Gradually the amounts of notionalincome went on varying on higher side in the light of thedistinguishing facts of the cases which raised even upto8,000/- p.m. to 12,000/- p.m.(c)Its noteworthy that recently the Hon. SupremeCourt has shown its disapproval in granting compensationmerely on the basis of ‘Notional Income’. The followingguiding instances would demonstrate how the Hon. SupremeCourt has taken realistic and pragmatic approach whileimparting justice to secure the object of the benevolentlegislation:C-1Category (I): Minors : So far as case of Minors are concerned, Hon.Supreme Court directed to consider the Minimum Wagesnotified for skilled employee. FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025 31Reliance needs to be placed on the recentpronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ofHitesh Patel Vs. Bababhai Rabari and ors. [2025 INSC 1070],wherein referring to its earlier decisions in the cases of Kajalv. Jagdish Chand and Ors. [2020 (4) SCC 413] and BabySakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr. [2024 SCCOnline SC 3692]. Its pertinent to note that the Hon. SupremeCourt has even directed the Insurance Companies to produceon record such Notifications issued by the Government fromtime to time laying down minimum salary/wages. C-2Category (ii) : Persons don’t having direct income e.g. housewifeThe Hon’ble Supreme Court in a landmarkjudgment in the case of Arun Kumar Agrawal Vs. NationalInsurance Co. Ltd. And ors. [2010 (9) SCC 218], observedthat contribution of Housewife in homemaking is nonethelesslower than an earning member. In the said case the Ld.Tribunal held income of a housewife @ Rs. 5000/- p.m., TheHigh Court reduced it to Rs. 2500/- p.m. FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025 32Disapproving reduction caused by the High Courtin the income of a Housewife, the Hon. Supreme Courtrestored housewife’s income @ Rs. 5000/- p.m.The guiding observations of the Hon. SupremeCourt are reproduced as follows:“23. In India the Courts have recognizedthat the contribution made by the wife to thehouse is invaluable and cannot be computed interms of money. The gratuitous services renderedby wife with true love and affection to thechildren and her husband and managing thehousehold affairs cannot be equated with theservices rendered by others. A wife/mother doesnot work by the clock. She is in the constantattendance of the family throughout the day andnight unless she is employed and is required toattend the employer’s work for particular hours.She takes care of all the requirements of husbandand children including cooking of food, washingof clothes, etc. She teaches small children andprovides invaluable guidance to them for theirfuture life. A housekeeper or maidservant can dothe household work, such as cooking food,washing clothes and utensils, keeping the houseclean 2 etc., but she can never be a substitute fora wife/mother who renders selfless service to herhusband and children.24. It is not possible to quantify any amount inlieu of the services rendered by the wife/motherto the family i.e. husband and children. However,for the purpose of award of compensation to theFA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025 33dependents, some pecuniary estimate has to bemade of the services of housewife/mother. In thatcontext, the term ‘services’ is required to be givena broad meaning and must be construed bytaking into account the loss of personal care andattention given by the deceased to her children asa mother and to her husband as a wife. They areentitled to adequate compensation in lieu of theloss of gratuitous services rendered by thedeceased. The amount payable to the dependantscannot be diminished on the ground that someclose relation like a grandmother may volunteerto render some of the services to the family whichthe deceased was giving earlier.”This law is consistently re-iterated by the Hon.Supreme Court in its later pronouncements. Latest in the case of Arvind Kumar Pandey Vs.Girish Pande [C.A. 2512 of 2024], the Hon’ble SupremeCourt observed that,“7. Assuming that the deceased was notemployed, it cannot be disputed that she was ahomemaker. Her direct and indirect monthlyincome, in no circumstances, could be less thanthe wages admissible to a daily wager in the Stateof Uttarakhand under the Minimum Wages Act.8. It goes without saying that the role of ahomemaker is as important as that of a familymember whose income is tangible as a source oflivelihood for the family. The activities performedby a home-maker, if counted one by one, therewill hardly be any doubt that the contribution ofFA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025 34a home-maker is of a high order and invaluable.In fact, it is difficult to assess such a contributionin monetary terms.”C-3Category (iii) & (iv): Persons not having income, but have potentials to earn qua their education background,profile etc. In its another epochal decision, the Hon. SupremeCourt was dealing with another category of persons who canbe said to have some suggestive/indicative job but no incomeproof could be produced or could have uncertain income. Itwas a case of a truck driver where evidence was indicative ofhis job, but income was not proved. This case is known asChandra @ Chanda@Chandraram & another V/s MukushKumar Yadav & Ors. [2021 INSC 593:C.A. No.6152 of 2021].Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled where income was uncertain orcould not be proved, such guesswork to fix the income has tobe carried out which would be a result of “cautious, judiciousand contemplative mind”. Considering the nature of job ofthe accident victim, Hon. Supreme Court held that thenotifications issued by the Central Government definingminimum wages can be taken into consideration, in peculiarfacts, even something more can be added into the minimumfixed salary as notified by the Central govt. FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025 35Relevant portion from para. No.10 of “Chandra”case (supra) is reproduced as below for ready reference:“In absence of salary certificate the minimumwage notification can be a yard-stick but at thesame time cannot be an absolute one to fix theincome of the de-ceased. In absence ofdocumentary evidence on record some amount ofguesswork is required to be done. But at the sametime the guesswork for assessing the income ofthe deceased should not be totally detached fromreality. Merely because claimants were unable toproduce documentary evidence to show themonthly income of Shivpal, same does not justifyadoption of lowest tier of minimum wage whilecomputing the income”C-4Category (v): Persons having no income/job but have expedient potentials to suggest their income: Now coming to the present case of category (v),Considering the facts of the case that the deceased was indeeda meritorious student, who has secured admission togovernment medical college at Aurangabad and wasprosecuting final year of the M.B.B.S studies, it necessarilycalls me to refer the realistic view latest expressed by the Hon.Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Singh (Died Per Lrs.) Vs.HD Narang and ors. [2025 INSC 1164 : C.A. 8136 of 2024]. FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025 36It was a case of a student prosecuting the studiesof Chartered Accountant. Their Lordships observed that,“5. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellantargued that there was no rationale in adoptingthe minimum wages for determining the incomeof a bright student who was in the process ofcompleting his graduation and proceeding to sitfor the Chartered Accountants examinations. Thelearned Counsel for the Insurance Company firstargued that the amounts determined as minimumwages, is as per the schedule in Delhi relatable toa graduate. We were not convinced that theminimum wages would be determined on thebasis of the educational qualification alonewithout reference to the nature of work carriedon. The learned Counsel after further verificationsubmitted that minimum wages adopted is of theyear 2001 applicable to a skilled worker. We arenot convinced that even that can be adopted for agraduate who was in the process of sitting for theChartered Accountant examination which wouldhave placed him in a good employment withimmense prospects. The aspirations of the youngman were shattered by the accident which lefthim paraplegic and fighting for breath, whichalso prompted the parents to relocate to anotherpart of the country. We are of the opinion thateven if he had not obtained the certificate as aChartered Accountant, upon graduation, he couldhave been employed as an Accountant, whowould have, on any reasonable estimate, receivedan amount of Rs.5,000/- as monthly income inthe year 2001, if the minimum wages prescribedfor a skilled worker was Rs.3,352/-. FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025 37Adopting Rs.5,000/- as monthly income, we areof the opinion that, as has been held in PranaySethi1 , 40% has to be computed as futureprospects. The loss of income for the 100%disabled paraplegic would be Rs.15,12,000/-(Rs.5,000/- x 140% x 12 x 18). To this is to beadded an amount of Rs.14 lakhs granted by theHigh Court under conventional heads and themedical expenses of Rs.11,22,356/- totalling toRs.40,34,356/-. The total award carrying interest@ 9% per annum from the filing of the petitiontill realisation, as awarded by the Tribunal & theHigh Court and enhanced by us will be paid tothe substituted appellant within a period of fourmonths from today.(6) Conclusion6.1For the reasons recorded above, I am well guidedby the fiat governed by reasoned realistic approach of theHon. Supreme Court (supra) in compensation cases on theissues discussed herein. Corresponding to the category of thedeceased i.e. a meritorious final year student of Medicalfaculty, I am of the considered view that the ‘Just and proper’compensation must be in the light of the observations madeby the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kirti (supra) ,Bishnupriya (supra) and Sharad Singh (supra).FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025

386.2Hence, I feel appropriate to hold the income ofthe deceased Ganesh Wagh atleast @ Rs.50,000/- per monthto fix the ‘Just & Appropriate’ compensation. The correctmultiplier would be M-18 which is corresponding to the age ofthe deceased Ganesh Wagh. The Claimants are entitle forcompensation under the head of ‘Future Prospects’ whichequally shall carry interest. 6.3In view of my findings above, in my opinion thecorrect computation of the award would be as follows:Sr. No.ParticularsAmount1Monthly income50,000/-2Annual income (50,000*12)6,00,000/-3Dependents034Deduction towards personal and living expenses (@ 50%)-3,00,000/-5Total (Annual income-deduction)3,00,000/-6.Age247Multiplier188Total (Column 5*18)54,00,000/-9Future Prospects (Column 8*40%)75,60,000/-10Non Pecuniary Damages1,10,000/-11Total enhanced amount76,70,000/-12Amount awarded by Tribunal54,80,000/-13Enhanced amount (Column 11-12)21,90,000/-FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025 39(07) Resultantly, I pass following order:ORDERI.First Appeal No.1369 of 2016 filed by the MSRTC stands dismissed without any order as to cost.I-AThe claimants i.e. R.Nos.1 to 3 in the First Appeal No.1369 of 2016 are entitle to withdraw the amount deposited by the Appellant in this Court, if any pending balance. Undertakings/security if any executed by the Claimants, stand discharged.II.Cross Objection No.200 of 2025 is partly allowed thereby enhancing the compensation from Rs.54,80,000/- to 76,70,000/-.III.Amount of Rs. 54,80,000/- at clause 2 of the operative order in the impugned Judgment & Order dtd.31-12-2012 passed by the Ld. Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Aurangabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.241 of 2015, shall stand replaced by Rs. 76,70,000/-,and Amount of Rs.54,30,000/- at clause 3 of theoperative order in the impugned judgmentand order dated 31.12.2012 passed by theLd. Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Aurangabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.241 of 2015, be replaced by Rs.76,20,000/-;FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025 40IV.The respondents in the Cross Objection No.200 of 2025 shall deposit the enhanced amount in this Court within ten weeks together with interest @6 % p.a. from the date of institution of the claim petition i.e. w.e.f. 02.04.2015, till realization of the entire amount;IV-AUpon such deposit in this court, the Claimants i.e. Appellants in the Cross Objection No.200 of 2025 shall be entitle towithdraw it in the same proportion as has been directed by the Ld. Tribunal;V.Appellants in Cross Objection to pay deficit Court fees, if any;VI.Civil Applications if any, stand disposed of in view of disposal of the First Appeal and the Cross Objection.Pronounced in open court.( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )Rushikesh/2025FA-1369-2016 with XOB-200-2025