Sonam Phintso Wangdi JUDGMENT
Sonam Phintso Wangdi, J.
1. The Appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to assail the judgment dated 31.03.2015 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, South Sikkim at Namchi (for short the "Claims Tribunal"), in MACT Case No. 13 of 2014, whereby the Respondents-Claimants were awarded compensation of Rs. 13,05,001/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs five thousand and one) only for the death of the deceased, the liability of which was placed upon the Appellant-Insurance Company.
2. The Respondents-Claimants No. 1 and 2 are the parents and the Respondent-Claimant No. 3, the younger brother of the deceased, Puja Chettri alias Pooja Chettri, aged about 17 (seventeen) years, who died in a motor vehicle accident involving a Maruti WagonR (Private) vehicle bearing Registration No. SK 01 P 9027 owned by one Late Sanjeev Bhagat.
3. The accident took place on 21.06.2014 at around 1700 hrs at Dojek Bhir (cliff) near Rangpo Khola, Ravangla, South Sikkim, when the vehicle was being driven by the owner, Sanjeev Bhagat. The accident caused the death of the owner and the deceased who was travelling in the said vehicle.
4. Claim for Rs. 15,31,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs and thirty one thousand) only as compensation was preferred before the Claims Tribunal by the Respondents-Claimants which ultimately culminated in the impugned judgment.
5. Although in the Appeal, the Appellant-Insurance Company challenges the award on various grounds, at the time of the arguments, however, Mr. Thupden G. Bhutia, Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Appellant-Insurance Company, confined himself to 2 (two) grounds only, i.e., (i) deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and (ii) of the future prospects granted by the Claims Tribunal.
6. Relying upon a Single Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Simar Kaur v. Pawan Kumar and Others : MANU/PH/4048/2013 : IV (2014) ACC 602 (P&H), it was submitted that the deceased in that case being a student of IXth standard whose income had been worked out on an assumption and was unmarried was not granted any award on future prospects. As per the Learned Counsel, the facts in the case before us being pari materia, the Respondents-Claimants, therefore, would not be entitled to compensation against future prospects of the deceased.
7. His alternative submission was that even if the Respondents-Claimants were entitled to compensation on account of future prospects, it ought not to have been by deduction of one-third of her income as granted by the Claims Tribunal but, 50% following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another : MANU/SC/0606/2009 : (2009) 6 SCC 121. He would also refer to Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others : MANU/SC/0537/2012 : (2012) 11 SCC 738.
8. Mr. Ajay Rathi, Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Respondents-Claimants, on the other hand, submits that there being no error in the impugned judgment, no interference was called for by this Court. He would emphasise that even if the first contention raised on behalf of the Appellant-Insurance Company was to be accepted the second contention would certainly not sustain.
9. I have given careful consideration to the rival contentions, examined the records and the impugned judgment.
10. The first contention on behalf of the Appellant is that the Respondents-Claimants ought not to have been granted compensation against future prospects at all as the deceased was a student and an unemployed person. It is submitted that since the deceased was unemployed and her income that was worked out by the Claims Tribunal was notional, she could not have had........