NEW INDIA ASSURANE CO LTD Vs. ANIL KAUSHIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.09.2013 whereby compensation of Rs.14,45,000/ - was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) for the death of Nitish Kaushik who died in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 15.04.2009 at about 2:30 p.m.

(2.) THERE is twin challenge to the judgment. First, that negligence on the part of the driver of TATA 407 no.DL -1LG -7686 was not proved and second, that the Claims Tribunal erred in taking the potential income of a student pursuing LLB course to be Rs.15,000/ - per month, particularly when he was just a Ist Year student pursuing five years course.

(3.) THE Respondents examined Gajender Kaushik(PW -2) as an eye witness to the accident. He deposed that offending TATA tempo dashed against the motorcycle from behind. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the FIR reveals that there was no eye witness to the incident. It has now been explained by the Respondents as to wherefrom Gajender Kaushik surfaced as an eye witness. I have the Trial Court record before me. I have perused the Affidavit and crossexamination of Gajender Kaushik. Gajender Kaushik has described the manner of accident. Nothing could be elicited in the cross -examination of this witness to discredit his testimony. The driver of the offending TATA tempo has not come forward to give his version of the incident. In view of this, the testimony of this witness has remained unchallenged and unrebutted. Negligence under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is sufficiently established. Compensation