ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. BIRBATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this appeal the appellant seeks to assail the judgment and award dated 8th April, 2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on a petition filed under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation by the respondents no.1 and 2 herein, who lost their son Pankaj Yadav in a road accident, for which FIR No. 504/2006 under Sections 279/304A IPC was registered at Police Station Najafgarh.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that on 29th May, 2006 the deceased was going from Tura Mandi to Metro Station Najafgarh as pillion rider on the scooter bearing no. HR 26 K 9556, which was being driven by his brother. When they reached Najafgarh-Tilak Nagar Main Road, near Metro Station Opposite Sai Baba Mandir, Najafgarh, their scooter met with an accident with one Maruti Wagon R Car bearing registration no. HR 51 S 1562 which was driven by the respondent no.3. As a result of the accident the deceased Sh. Pankaj Yadav fell down on the road and received fatal injuries, resulting in the filing of the claim petition by the respondents no.1 and 2 against the driver (respondent no.3 herein), the owner (respondent no.4 herein) and the insurer of the offending car. THE respondents no.3 and 4 having failed to contest the case on merits, the appellant was granted the requisite permission to do so under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act by order of theTribunal dated 10th April, 2008.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant further contended that in the absence of authentic proof of the salary of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased on the basis of the minimum wages for the purpose of computing the compensation payable to the respondents no.1 and 2. THE second contention of Ms. Bagga was that the learned Claims Tribunal had failed to appreciate that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Smt. Sarla Dixit and Anr. vs. Balwant Yadav and Ors. AIR 1996 SC 1274 was not applicable to the facts of the present case, as no evidence was led to prove the future prospects of the deceased, and even the salary certificate of the deceased had not been proved in accordance with law. As such, the addition of future prospects to the income of the deceased was not sustainable.