Parents get Rs 16.55 lakh for son’s death, court says ‘God gave him no time to earn’

The parents were challenging the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which had awarded compensation of Rs 4.86 lakh.

Accident and 18 years of battle

The parents of the victim pointed out that their son had completed a BEd from Government College, Nalagarh, and later obtained a diploma in computer hardware from the Industrial Training Department.

The parents also stated that both their sons were directors in M/s Natural Rubber Industries. According to the father, the business had just started when his son passed away. However, the first bill of Rs 29,400 was issued only on May 23, 2008. He also admitted that no income had yet been derived from the firm as the business had only recently commenced.

They claimed that their son was riding a motorcycle along with one Sunil Kumar, who was a pillion rider when he was hit by a negligently and rashly driven truck on May 25, 2008.

They added that their son sustained fatal injuries and was taken to the civil hospital and further referred to Himalayan Institute Hospital Trust, where he remained admitted from May 27, 2008, to June 4, 2008. He later succumbed to his injuries.

Court ensuring ends of justice

• The court found that, considering the future prospects of the industrial unit set up by the victim along with his brother, taking his monthly income at only Rs 5,000 was not justified.
• The court held that the ends of justice would be met if Singh’s income during his lifetime was assessed at Rs 10,000 per month.
• The court observed that the parents of the victim were also entitled to compensation under the conventional heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium.
• The court directed that the amount of compensation be enhanced from Rs 4.86 lakh to Rs 16.55 lakh.
• The high court held that the parents’ entitlement on account of the loss of earning capacity of their son worked out to Rs 15.12 lakh.
• However, the court clarified that the ultimate liability to pay the entire awarded amount would remain with ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Company.

Arguments 

Representing the parents, senior advocate Devyani Sharma argued for the enhancement of the compensation, stating that the tribunal previously had misread and misinterpreted the evidence placed on record.

Sharma added that the tribunal failed to consider that the victim was running a rubber factory and was engaged in manufacturing rubber of high quality, and was earning Rs 20,000 per month. 

According to the owner of the said truck and the involved driver, the victim was himself negligent and, as such, the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation. 

They further argued that the negligence of the said driver was not found in the alleged FIR. 

Advocate Jagdish Thakur, representing the insurance company, argued that the petition is not maintainable, as Singh died on account of his own negligence while riding a motorcycle. 

It was added that the said truck driver did not have a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident, and the vehicle was being permitted to ply in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.