SUDHIR KR GAUTAM Vs. UDAYAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this appeal, the appellants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased Ms. Manushi Gautam seek enhancement of the compensation awarded to them by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, New Delhi, by its judgment and award dated 3.4.2007 passed in Suit No.169/2007 titled as "Sudhir Kumar Gautam and Anr. Vs. Udayan Kumar and Ors."

(2.) THE facts relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that on 06.05.2004, Ms. Manushi Gautam (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was travelling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle driven by her brother. THE said motorcycle, when it was in a stationary position at the red light traffic signal, was hit by an Army Bus bearing No. 03-P01-3514K from behind. As a result of this impact, Ms. Manushi Gautam received fatal injuries to which she succumbed on the spot. A criminal case bearing FIR No.105/04 was registered at Police Station Chanakyapuri, New Delhi against respondent No.1-the driver of the offending Army Bus. A Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 having been filed by the father and mother of the deceased claiming compensation of ` 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lac only) for the accidental demise of their daughter, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded a total compensation in the sum of ` 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lac Fifty Thousand only) payable by the respondents jointly and severally alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till its realization. Aggrieved therefrom, the present appeal has been preferred by the parents of the deceased on the ground that a very meagre amount of compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal.

(3.) A perusal of the judgment of the learned Tribunal shows that the learned Tribunal, after taking note of the fact that the appellants had proved on record the provisional certificate of the deceased, Ex.PW2/6 to show that the deceased had completed a three year diploma course in Architectural Assistantship from Meera Bai Polytechnic, New Delhi, held that in the absence of any document on record to prove the income of the deceased, the income of the deceased could not be assessed to be more than ` 3,500/- per month. Mr. Mannie, the learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that even the minimum wage rate applicable to a graduate on the date of the accident was ` 3,622.90 per month and since the deceased had completed a technical course in Architecture, she was certainly more qualified than a Graduate simpliciter. I find merit in this submission of the learned counsel for the appellants and accordingly, I assess the income of the deceased to be not less than the minimum wage rate on the date of the accident, as applicable to a graduate, which was in the sum of ` 3,623/- per month.