LALOO NARAIN PAREEK Vs. SHRI SRIDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal for enhancement of compensation preferred by the claimant in an accident claim case. On 25. 12. 1986 Praveen Kumar, the deceased, was riding on Scooter. The respondent No. 1 driving a Motor Cycle belonging to Union of India hit him causing serious injuries to Praveen Kumar on the forehead and the head resulting in his death. Praveen Kumar was 24 years of age at the time of his death. He was a student in Engineering College prosecuting his studies for M. E. Degree. A claim petition was preferred by the Mother, Father, two Sisters and a Brother of the deceased claiming a total compensation of rupees 12 lacs 15 thousand before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Jodhpur. The MACT awarded a total compensation of Rupees 1 lac 52 thousand only. Complaining of the inadequacy of the compensation awarded, the claimants have filed this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased was an Engineer and had bright future prospects of earning a decent income in his life. Assessing his average income at Rs. 1,500/-per month, according to the learned counsel, even in the year 1986 was ridiculous. The learned counsel also submitted that the assessment of compensation has been made mechanically without looking to the material on record. The learned counsel for the Union of India contested the appeal and submitted that the award can not be said to be inadequate or inappropriate.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel and have perused the record. PW 1 Laloo Narain, father of the deceased, deposed that his son was very good at studies. He had passed B. E. examination in Honours and was prosecuting his studies for M. E. Degree and was in receipt of Rs. 1,000/-per month as scholarship. He also deposed that the deceased after passing his B. E. Examination was employed as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the services of the State Government and served the State Government on a salary of Rs. 2,000/-per month till he got admission in M. E. course. He also exhibited a letter offering a service on salary of Rs. 3,000/-per month received by his son. He also stated that he had to spent Rs. 2,000/-for carrying the dead body to Jaipur and also spent Rs. 10,000/-for performing the last rites and obsequies of the deceased. He stated that Rs. 5,000/-was spent on repairing the Scooter which was damaged. As regards the longevity in the family he stated that his father died at the age of 77 and mother was living at the age of 70. He also deposed that the deceased was his eldest son and if he had not met with the accident he would have earned rupees 4 to 5 thousand per month and would have given at least half of that income to the witness. Nothing of consequence came out in the cross-examination. PW2 Ratan Singh Gehlot stated that he had offered a job of Rs. 3,000/-to Praveen Kumar. PW 3 Pawan Kumar was riding on the Pillion seat with the deceased at the time of the accident. He deposed about the circumstances in which the accident took place. He said nothing about income or prospects of earning of Praveen Kumar. On behalf of respondents, only respondent No. 1, the Driver of the vehicle, was examined who said nothing about the prospects of income of the deceased.

(3.) THE appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms and the award is modified accordingly. .