HC grants Rs 1 crore Compensation for MBBS student's Death, says Earning Potential of Future Doctor cannot be Ignored

Jodhpur: Observing that when dealing with young professionals-in-training, the courts must rise above the rigid arithmetical calculations and insistence on income proof, the Rajasthan High Court recently awarded Rs 1,07,13,500 to the family of an MBBS student, who died in a motor accident.

Earlier in the case, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner, had awarded Rs 12,52,429 as compensation to the family. Finding the amount inadequate, the deceased medico's parents sought enhancement of the compensation and approached the High Court.

Allowing the appeal of the grieving couple, who lost their 20-year-old son and was a promising MBBS student and a potential future doctor, the HC bench comprising Justice Arun Monga ordered,

"I am of the considered opinion that in cases of the nature, as the one in hand, when dealing with young professionals-intraining, courts must rise above the rigid arithmetical calculations and insistence of income proof. A purely mathematical or minimum-wage-based approach risks devaluing education, aspiration, and merit — which are highly valued and zealously protected by the law. Apart therefrom, realistic compensation not only ensures restorative justice for the bereaved family but also serves as a deterrent to negligent driving, reinforcing accountability in road safety."

The history of the case goes back to 2019 when the MBBS student was travelling in a car from Jodhpur to Udaipur, along with his friends. When the vehicle reached near Bhairunath Dhaba, its driver (son of the first respondent), due to rash and negligent driving, hit a motorcycle. As a result, the car driver lost control and collided with a road divider, leading to injuries from iron angles installed along the divider.

Resultantly, the son (MBBS medico) of the appellants (parents) sustained grievous injuries in the accident and, despite medical efforts, succumbed to his injuries. All the parties to the claim petition actively participated in the proceedings, and the Tribunal awarded a total of Rs 12,52,429 as compensation to the appellants. However, finding the compensation amount inadequate, the appellants approached the HC bench.

The counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal had erred in assessing the deceased's income by merely applying the standard of minimum wage of a skilled worker without any realistic and reasonable estimation or guesswork. This approach ignored the deceased's academic background and future earning potential, argued the Counsel.

He further submitted that the deceased was a second-year MBBS student at Sampoornanand Medical College, Jodhpur, and secured admission through the highly competitive NEET examination. Therefore, the counsel argued that the deceased's academic excellence and career prospects demonstrated a potential for significantly higher earnings than those of an unskilled labourer, a factor that the Tribunal had failed to acknowledge.

It was also submitted that the Tribunal had overlooked the socio-economic status of the claimants and did not award reasonable amounts under the heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate. Further, the Tribunal applied an incorrect multiplier and made improper deductions, thereby underestimating the compensation.

While the appellants prayed for an increased amount of compensation, on the other hand, the Insurance Company argued that the deceased was only a medical student at the time of his death and at that time he did not have any income, rather he was a liability on his family since the family had to spend money on his education.

The HC bench, while considering the matter, perused the Tribunal's order and opined that "the learned Tribunal's approach has been wholly unrealistic, unduly pedantic, hypertechnical and very narrow leading to the too low assessment of the income potential of the deceased."

It also observed that the Tribunal awarded Rs 12,52,429 based on the minimum wage for a skilled worker (Rs 7,774 per month), even though the deceased, was a second-year MBBS student, who cleared the NEET exam, one of India's toughest competitive exams.

Opining that the Courts must rise above rigid arithmetical calculations and insistence of income proof, the HC bench further observed,

"In present case, there has been wholly unrealistic and unduly low assessment of income of the victim of accident as that of a skilled worker, totally ignoring the earning potential of a future doctor — a respected and remunerative profession. This, in my opinion, is/ was a grave error and gross underestimation of the income potential of the accident victim."

"It is common knowledge that on completion professional courses like MBBS or engineering, such students have the potential to earn far above and multiple times of the minimum wage of a skilled worker. The Tribunal rejected the claim of income of ₹25,000/- per month tuition earnings due to lack of documentary proof. However, it failed to make a realistic assessment and apply judicial mind to the deceased’s academic trajectory while assessing his potential future earnings. Thus, the learned Tribunal committed a manifest error in law by applying a rigid and overly conservative formula for assessment of notional income to a case where the deceased’s future earnings and familial contribution were clearly poised for excellence. A corrective and compassionate course is warranted in the case in hand," it further noted.

Relying on a previous judgment in the case of Bishnupriya Panda Vs. BasantiManjari Mohanty &Anr., the HC bench noted, "In present case, the accident took place on 06.02.2019. At that time, the deceased was 21 years and 8 months old and was a second-year MBBS student at Sardar Patel Medical College, Jodhpur. Taking cue from the view taken by the Apex Court in Bishnupriya Panda supra and allowing for overall general trend of increase in the income with passage of time from 2013 to 2019, I am of the opinion that it would be fair and reasonable to assess the income potential of the Sunil Bishnoi deceased at the time of his death in 2019 as Rs. 70,000/- per month."

Adding 40% of the same towards future prospects, the Court calculated the deceased's notional income as Rs 98,000. "By deducting it’s 50% i.e. Rs.49,000/- towards self expenses, the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.49,000/- on which compensation ought to be calculated and awarded. Applying the multiplier of 18 (as also applied by the learned Tribunal), the compensation for the death of the deceased would come to Rs. 1,05,84,000/-" it further observed and it also increased the compensation awarded under the head of "loss of love and affectiuon/consortium" from Rs 44,000 to Rs 88,000 for both the parents.

Ultimately, the Court calculated the total amount of compensation as Rs 1,07,13,500 and ordered, "The enhanced amount of compensation with interest thereon @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of compensation application (02.07.2019) before the learned Tribunal shall be paid to appellants No. 1 and 2 in equal shares initially by respondent No. 2 (insurance company), who may, thereafter, take appropriate proceedings against respondent No.1 for it’s recovery, if so advised and found otherwise admissible."

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/rajasthan-hc-285616.pdf

Also Read: 5 MBBS Students killed in Car Crash in Andhra's Nellore