Yashpal Singh and Another vs Yaseen and Others

B.C. Kandpal, J.—This appeal, u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 18-8-2006, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar, in MACT Case No. 14/2005.

Brief facts of the case are that on 5.1.2005 Ajay Kumar, son of the claimants, was going to Multiwal Paper Mill riding in cycle. As soon as he reached in front of Multiwal Factory, a Tractor Swaraj bearing registration No. U.P. 22-C-6297 came there from Bazpur side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the cycle from rear side and crushed him under the wheel due to which he died at the spot. The driver fled away from the spot leaving there the Tractor and Trolley. According to the claimants the deceased was 18 years of age studying in class-9th. The claimants alleged in the claim petition that the deceased also used to do the agriculture work and used to earn about Rs. 3,000/- per month.

The Opposite Party No. 1, driver of the offending Tractor filed written statement denying the allegations of the petition. He also alleged that he had valid driving license at the time of accident.

The Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3, owner of the Tractor, also filed written statement and denied the allegations made in the claim petition. According to them The driver of the Tractor had valid driving license and he was driving the Tractor at a moderate speed. They also alleged that the deceased had no income and the claimants were not dependent upon him. The Tractor Trolley was insured with National Insurance Company and the liability if any is upon the insurance company.

The Opposite Party No. 4, National Insurance Company also filed the written statement and alleged that the owner of the Tractor has to prove that the driver was having valid driving license and the vehicle had insurance cover. It also alleged that no income certificate of the deceased was produced, therefore, the claimants are not entitled to get any compensation.

The learned Tribunal on the pleadings of parties framed issues in the claim petition. Thereafter, parties adduced evidence, in support of their case. The Tribunal after hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, against the National Insurance Company.

Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement.

Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly disbelieved the assertion of the claimants on the point of monthly income of the deceased and awarded a meager amount of compensation which is liable to be enhanced.

From perusal of impugned award it reveals that the Tribunal did not accept the assertion of the claimants that the deceased was earning about Rs. 3,000/- per month. The claimants did not file any certificate relating to the income and age of the deceased. They have simply said that the deceased was a student of 9th class and his age was 18 years and was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month from the agricultural work. In the claim petition as well as in the post mortem report the age of the deceased was noted as 16, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken his age as 16 years at the time of his death. The learned Tribunal in the above circumstances awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in lieu of death of deceased. This finding of the Tribunal cannot be said to be wrong. The deceased was a child and non-earning person, therefore, in view of uncertainties abound, neither his income at the time of death nor the prospects of the future increase in his income nor chances of advancement of his career are capable of proper determination on estimated basis. Therefore, neither the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment on estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation. Hence, the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation is just and proper and cannot be said to be on lesser side.

The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 18-8-2006 is confirmed.