UOI Vs. ANKUR PACHAURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 16. 08. 2005 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The brief summary of the facts to deal with the contentions of the parties are as under:-Shri Ankur Pachauri, Minor in the morning of 03. 07. 1992 was coming from his home on bicycle and was to enter the main road from the approach road of the station Workshop, Delhi Cantt. He was on the proper side of the road in normal speed when an Army Jeep bearing registration no. 88 B 46175y coming from the opposite direction driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner at a high speed, from the main road hit the cyclist. As a result of forceful impact, he was dragged to some distance and fell down and sustained injuries on his head. He was removed to Army Hospital for his treatment.

(2.) MR. , Pankaj Batra, Counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- on account of loss of earning of one year of the appellant. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that there is no basis for the Tribunal to arrive at such a figure of Rs. 15,000/- per month and the findings of the Tribunal are totally presumptuous. Counsel for the appellant further contends that the respondent was just 9 years old at the time of the accident and the Tribunal has assessed his income at Rs. 15,000/- per month on the presumption that he would have drawn a salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month as such a salary is minimum earning of a newly appointed engineer. Counsel for the appellant further contends that the Tribunal has given undue weightage to the additional evidence led by the respondent and has drawn an analogy from the salary of the his younger sister, who was drawing a package of Rs. 2,03,401/ -. Counsel for the appellant further contends that adequate opportunity has not been afforded to the appellant to lead the evidence. Counsel also contends that it is due to the negligence of the officer, who was entrusted the said case by the appellant that the requisite steps before the Tribunal could not be taken by the appellant.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at considerable length and have perused the record.