T CHANDRAMATHIAMMA Vs. PAPPI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 7.3.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

(2.) The facts which are not in dispute inter alia, are that the petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was preferred by the mother of the deceased seeking compensation on account of death of her son M.N. Nand Kumar. The deceased son of the appellant was 24 years old and was working as an Engineer with M/s. Fasci Comp Systems on a monthly salary of Rs.3000/-. On 15.3.90 at about 4.00 P.M. the deceased who was pillion riding a motor cycle bearing registration No. DNF 124 driven by one Mr. Pradeep Kumar was hit due to the rash and negligent driving by one truck bearing registration no. DLL 6858 which collided with the Maruti Car which led to causing the said accident of the motor cycle. The deceased received serious injuries and was declared brought dead at the hospital.

(3.) In the present appeal Mr. Divakaran Kanoth, the counsel the appellant has assailed the findings of the award dated 7.3.2006 mainly on two grounds; firstly the age of the mother/appellant has been wrongly taken into consideration as 67 years, although her correct age was 54 years on the date of accident. The second contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has not correctly taken into consideration the future prospects of the deceased as he has a promising career being a qualified engineer. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the deceased who was employed as an engineer could have earned much more till the date of his retirement had he not met with the said tragic accident.