Prtc vs Naresh Kumar Jain & Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 9177 P&H

                                                                             2023:PHHC:083497

                                     FAO No. 5519 of 2005 (O&M)                             -1-


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

           Sr. No.212
                                                   Case No. : FAO No. 5519 of 2005 (O&M)
                                                   Date of Decision : July 03, 2023

                               Pepsu Road Transport Corporation,
                               Patiala                                ....    Appellant
                                                vs.
                               Naresh Kumar Jain and others           ....    Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.

* * * Present : Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

* * * GURBIR SINGH, J. :

1. This appeal has been filed by the owner of the offending bus

against the Award dated 15.09.2005, passed by Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Bathinda (for short - the Tribunal), in favour of the claimants and

against the driver and owner of the offending vehicle i.e. Bus No.PB-11-

9183.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned

Tribunal has assessed the salary of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month

along with incentive and conveyance allowance, whereas as per the Salary

Certificate (Ex.P-5), the salary of the deceased was Rs.2713/- per month, as

was paid for the months of April and May, 2004. It has further been argued

that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly salary of the

deceased to be Rs.3,000/- per month.

3. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the

MONIKA appellant and have also gone through the Lower Court Record. 2023.07.10 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2023:PHHC:083497

4. The appellant has not challenged the findings on issue no.1

regarding the accident in question. He has only challenged the monthly

income of Deepak Kumar Jain (since deceased). Para No.16 of the

impugned Award is as under :-

"(16) Sh. Deepak Kumar Jain was a qualified engineer. He was a brilliant boy and there were ample opportunities of his success in life. He was a Production Engineer. He was aged about 29 years at the time of his death. There was every scope of enhancement of his income in the near future. Thus, keeping in view the entire circumstances, this Tribunal assessed monthly income of Sh. Deepak Kumar Jain as Rs.3,000/- and annual income of Rs.36,000/-."

5. The learned Tribunal has not assessed the monthly salary of the

deceased but has assessed his monthly income as Rs.3,000/-, keeping in

view that the deceased was a brilliant boy and was having ample

opportunities of his success in the life. He was Production Engineer and

there was every scope of enhancement of his income in near future.

6. The learned Tribunal also took into consideration that the

deceased had passed Matriculation examination in first division, as per the

Certificate annexed as Ex.P-14 and had also passed the Graduated Aptitude

Test in Engineering (GATE) by securing 95.77% marks.

7. Keeping in view the facts that Deepak Kumar Jain (since

deceased) was an Engineering Graduate and had a bright future, the learned

Tribunal had rightly assessed his monthly income to be Rs.3,000/- since

there was no bar for him to do some work even during holidays as he was a MONIKA 2023.07.10 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2023:PHHC:083497

qualified engineer.

8. Accordingly, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the

case, no ground is made out to interfere in the Award passed by learned

Tribunal. The present appeal is without any merit and is accordingly

dismissed with no order as to costs.

9. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of along with

this judgment.

           July 03, 2023                                         (GURBIR SINGH)
           monika                                                    JUDGE

                                Whether speaking/reasoned ?      Yes/No.
                                Whether reportable ?             Yes/No.




MONIKA
2023.07.10 16:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document