B P SINGHAL Vs. RAM KUMAR RATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this appeal, appellants seek to assail the impugned award dated 27. 1. 1993 on four grounds. Firstly, that the learned tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,500/- p. m. , without properly appreciating the evidence brought and duly proved on record. The second contention raised by appellants is that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 20, when the proper multiplier applicable in the instant case should have been 25 or 30 on the basis of the age of the parents of the deceased. The third contention of appellants is that the rate of interest awarded by the tribunal @ 12% is on the lower side, therefore, interest @ 18% p. a. should have been awarded in the facts and circumstances of the case. Lastly, appellants contended that the tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of love and affection and company of their only son.

(2.) FOR better appreciation of the contentions raised by the parties, it would be appropriate to give brief scenario of the facts as under: -On 4. 10. 1981 at about 1. 10 p. m. , the deceased, Sh. Ashish Singhal, aged 21 years, was travelling in a three-wheeler scooter bearing registration No. DHR-5301 and was going towards India Gate on Dr. Zakir Hussain Marg. When the said scooter was at the crossing of the Zakir Hussain Road and Cornwallis Road, suddenly the offending DTC bus, bearing registration No. DHP-2996 came from cornwallis Road for going towards Zoo's direction, being driven in a very rash and negligent manner by its driver. The bus driver skipped the red light traffic signal at the aforesaid crossing and suddenly lost the control over the vehicle. When the three-wheeler scooter saw the bus coming towards him, he tried to save himself from the collision but the bus which, was being driven at a high speed hit the three-wheeler scooter and smashed it and as a result of this, Master ashish Singhal died. The bus driver of the bus even after the said accident did not stop and sped away. A claim petition was instituted before the Motor accident Claims Tribunal and the tribunal on 27/1/1993 made the award. Aggrieved with the said award present appeal is preferred by the appellant claimant. Sh. R. P. Bansal, Learned Senior Advocate for the appellants contended that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,500/- per month in a most whimsical manner and without properly appreciating the evidence duly proved on record. The counsel urged that the income of the deceased as proved on record was more than Rs. 3,500/ -. Per contra, Sh. Jyotindra kumar, counsel for the respondents traversed the said contention of the counsel for the appellants and submitted that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,500/- per month, in a most casual manner although no evidence was placed on record in support of the same by the appellants to prove the said income. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the deceased was a student, and therefore, could not be supposed to earning also. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and have perused the record.

(3.) THE Hon"ble Apex Court in plethora of cases has held that while assessing the income of the deceased in motor accident cases, the tribunals should bear in mind that the same should be assessed on the basis of the cogent and the reliable evidence produced and duly proved on record. On perusal of the award it is clearly borne out that the tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,500/ -. Admittedly, the deceased was of a young age of 21 years and was a student of M. Sc. (Physics) at the time of accident. The Tribunal has placed reliance on the judgments reported in 1989 (1) TAC 334, Kumari Vs. Shanti trivedi, 1991 (1) TAC 364, Uman Singh Gurung Vs. Shri Seva Rama Dutta, 1992 (1)TAC 96, Ayavvur Vs. Gopi Nathan Nair and 1990 ACJ 687 and Rukmani Devi Vs. Om prakash for the purpose of assessing the income of the deceased. Even under section 163a of the Motor Vehicles Act, the criteria of notional income of a boy of such an age has been laid down and it cannot be said that simply because the boy was a student, therefore, the notional income of such a boy should not be taken into consideration. Even otherwise as per the case set up by the appellants, the said deceased student was a partner in M/s. P. P. Singhal and company and was carrying on the business of pesticides. Counsel for the appellants has also invited my attention to the deposition of PW-12, who proved the existence of partnership firm M/s. P. P. Singhal in which the said boy, Master ashish Singhal was one of the partners. PW-3, father of the deceased, also entered the witness box and had deposed about the said fact of his son being a partner in the said partnership firm. He also proved that his son was likely to go abroad for higher education for which his passport was also ready. In the impugned award, the tribunal has also observed that the deceased was assured a job of the Director of the firm in his uncle"s firm. Further, the counsel for the appellants has also invited my attention to the deposition of PW-11, wherein the said witness had deposed about the offer of Rs. 5,000/- pm when the deceased would have joined the company. Even under the Minimum Wages Act, the income for a person possessing a graduates' degree has been duly stated and I, therefore, do not find that there is any illegality in the impugned award assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,500/- p. m. After taking into consideration, the academic record of the said student and his family status besides his being a partner in the said partnership firm it is manifest that the deceased had a bright future and had good chances of advancement in career, earnings, and life, therefore, the benefit of future prospects should also have been granted by the tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the present case.