RAJ BALA Vs. RAJENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned order dated 15. 10. 2005 so as to claim enhancement in the compensation amount over and above the amount of Rs. 5,71,600/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Brief summary of the facts of the present case is as under: the deceased Sh. Sarvender Singh was going on his motorcycle from mukhmailpur Village on 23. 8. 2003 at about 9 a. m. and when he reached Nangli-Mukhmail Road, Hiranki Village crossing, Alipur, Delhi, a truck bearing registration No. HR-69-0337 came from the side of Hiranki Village driven by the r1 at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of the deceased as a result of which the deceased received fatal injuries. Mr. O. P. Mannie, learned counsel for the appellant states that the tribunal has wrongly taken into consideration the age of the deceased as 40 years instead of 35 years. Second contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has granted a lower amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damages.

(2.) MS. Lakshmi Ramamurthy and Mr. Chardra Prakash, Advocates, are present for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. P. R. Sikka, counsel for respondent No. 3 insurance company has put in appearance.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased as 40 years after placing reliance on the Postmortem Report in which the age of the deceased is stated to be 40 years as on the said date. The contention of counsel for the appellant is that in the claim petition, age of the deceased has been stated as 35 years and the same age has been stated by the appellant who has been examined as PW2 before the Tribunal. In support of his argument, counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of Kerala High Court reported in 1991 AC 182 Binny vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.