TARA DEVI Vs. SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this appeal, the appellants seek to assail the judgment and award dated 9th April, 2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the ground that a very meagre and inadequate compensation has been awarded to them for the death of their only son in a motor vehicular accident.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal are that on 14 th June, 1995, Jeevan Singh, aged 21 years, was travelling in a bus bearing No.DL-1P 2741 and while alighting from the said bus at NDSE, Part 1, Ring Road, New Delhi, he sustained grievous injuries on account of the rashness and negligence of the driver of the said bus who started the bus all of a sudden, as a result of which the boy fell down and came under the left front wheel of the bus. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by his parents seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs for his untimely demise. THE said claim petition was not contested by the driver and owner of the offending bus, who chose to remain ex parte. THE insurer, M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., however, contested the petition and in its written statement disowned its liability to indemnify the insured alleging that the offending vehicle was not being driven by a person holding a valid driving licence. THE said plea raised in defence was negated by the Claims Tribunal and an award in the sum of Rs. 2,60,200/- with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till the date of payment was passed in favour of the appellants. It is this award against which the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) ADVERTING first to the aspect of assessment of the income of the deceased, I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that the income of the deceased has not been properly assessed by the learned Tribunal. There is on record the testimony of Shri Bhawan Singh, the father of the deceased who appeared in the witness box as PW2 to depose that his son was an electrician with M/s. Balaji Electric Store, 67, Sarojini Nagar on part-time basis and was also doing his own personal work and used to earn about Rs. 4,000/- per month, out of which he used to send Rs. 2,000/- per month to the appellants. The testimony of this witness is corroborated by the testimony of Shri Parkash Gangwani, who appeared in the witness box as PW3 and stated that he was a partner in M/s. Balaji Electric Store at the aforementioned address and that the deceased was doing part-time job of electric repair work with the said store, earning thereby Rs. 2,500/- per month. The witness further testified that the deceased was also doing his own work wherefrom he was earning about Rs. 2,000/- per month; had he been alive, he would have earned Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 7,000/- per month. He also proved on record document Ex.P5 to the effect that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,500/- per month from M/s. Balaji Electric Store.