entity which owned it. It is the specific case of the claimants, which has been averred in the pleadings and deposed by the witness, that the deceased was working in the business concern which owned the offending vehicle. There is no contra evidence led by the Insurance Company; nor did they cite any witness to disprove the same. When the facts are so undisputed, I do not see how the appellant can now say that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. In this regard, it is interesting that the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that since the deceased was only 17 years old, he could not have been working; and therefore, it should be axiomatically inferred that he is a gratuitous passenger. I am afraid that, this is a far-fledged argument because, even going by Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802] and in various other judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while fixing the percentage for 'Future Prospectus', in income, persons between the age groups 16 – 39 has been permitted 40%, which luculently shows that there is no assumption in law that a 17 year old cannot work. This argument certainly, therefore, deserves only to be repelled as being speculative and conjunctural and no more.
