SH NARINDER BISHAL Vs. SH RAMBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is preferred against the award dated 17th august, 2006 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,01,400/- along with interest @ 7. 5% per annum to the appellant. The factual scenario in nutshell is as follows: on 6th July, 1999 at about 2 pm Sh. Pragati Bishal along with Ms. Shilpi Chaudhary was traveling in his two-wheeler scooter and were proceeding towards Rohini. When they reached Road No. 41, Opposite Gautam Hospital, wazirpur Depot Road, Delhi, the scooter was hit from behind by a tempo bearing registration no. DDL 6850 driven in a very rash and negligent manner by the driver Sh. Munish as a result of which Sh. Pragati Bishal fell on the road. At that point of time a bus bearing registration no. DL 1p A 1046 which was being driven by Sh. Ranbir Singh came from behind and ran over the deceased, who succumbed to his injuries and died on the spot. Consequent to this, a claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 11th November, 1999 by the mother and father of the deceased, appellants herein.

(2.) AGGRIEVED with the award of the learned Claims Tribunal the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants. Sh. O. P. Mannie, learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the quantum of compensation awarded in the impugned award and has claimed enhancement in compensation. The Counsel contended that the deceased was a bachelor, hail and hearty and was of 21 years of age. He had qualified Higher Secondary Exams and was pursuing graduation through correspondence. He was also a diploma holder in both, computers and business accountancy. At the time of the accident, he was also doing accounts work and was teaching computer course to some students at his house where he had installed three computers and was earning around Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month out of which Rs. 6,000 per month, he was contributing towards household expenses. The counsel contended that ignoring all these, the tribunal has erroneously determined the income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages of a matriculate workman at Rs. 2,796 per month. The counsel further contended that the learned tribunal erred in not noticing that the minimum wages are revised twice in a year and that at the time of pronouncement of the judgment i. e. 17/08/2006, the minimum wages for a matriculate were Rs. 3,760 per month.

(3.) THE second contention of the counsel was that the future prospects of the deceased were not considered even though the deceased was a diploma holder in both, computers and business accountancy and at the time of the accident, he was also doing accounts work and was teaching computers to some students. It was also contended that the tribunal did not consider the increase in earnings of the deceased and the fact of the value of rupee denunciating due to high rates of inflation. The counsel urged that the learned tribunal had committed grave error in not only taking minimum wages as the basis of the income of the deceased but by also deducting 2/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased after perceived marriage of the deceased for the multiplier of 6. The counsel vehemently contended that the tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that in all probability the deceased would have married a working girl and she would also have contributed to support the appellants.