D T C Vs. J C JOHNSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present appeal, the appellant DTC seeks to challenge the impugned award dated 17.1.2006 on the quantum of compensation. Brief summary of facts to deal with the contentions of the rival parties are that on 18.2.1987 at about 4:30 pm deceased, Shri Rahul Johnson embarked upon a journey from Panchsheel Park, New Delhi to Som Vihar, New Delhi on motorcycle bearing registration no. DBW 3792. He was driving the motorcycle while his friend Shri Sardar Gurdeep Singh was pillion rider. At about 4:30 pm motorcycle was on Ventakeshwar Road, R.K. Puram, near the Dome between Sector 2and3, when it was hit on the front side by DTC bus bearing registration No. DHB 3394 driven by Shri Raghubir Singh in a very rash and negligent manner due to which, deceased along with pillion rider were thrown on the road with great force. As a result of such a forceful impact, deceased had suffered fatal injuries on his chest and back. He was taken to S.J. Hospital immediately, where he was declared 'brought dead'.

(2.) Mr. Ataul Haque, counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month although admittedly, the deceased was a student of B.Com (Hons.) IInd year. Contention of the counsel for the appellant is that in such like cases where claimant failed to establish income, the normal course being adhered by this court is to take help of Minimum Wages Act for the purpose of determining the income of the deceased.

(3.) The counsel contends that as on 18.02.1987, the date of accident, income under the Minimum Wages Act was Rs. 841/- per month for a matriculate and as per the contention of learned counsel for the appellant only said income could have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Counsel for the appellant further contends that the Tribunal has also wrongly deducted 1/3rd amount on account of personal expenses of the deceased although admittedly he was unmarried at the time of the accident and would have married at least by the age of 27 years whereafter he would be spending more than 1/3rd of his income towards personal expenses and prior to that the deceased could be taken to have been spending 2/3rd of his earning towards personal expenses Mr. Ataul Haque, counsel for the appellant further contends that the Tribunal has wrongly burdened the appellant to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the failure of the appellant to pay the said amount of compensation within a period of 30 days.