Punjab-Haryana High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Jameela Begam And Others on 24 April, 2012
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
FAO No.1483 of 2012 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.1483 of 2012 (O&M)
(in MACT case No.58)
Date of decision:24.4.2012
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.
....Appellant
Versus
Jameela Begam and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.Subhash Goyal, Advocate for the appellant
*****
Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral)
The Insurance Company has filed the present appeal assailing the award dated 7.12.2011, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the appellant alongwith respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were held liable jointly and severally to satisfy the award.
The only point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased did not have earning at the time of accident. The learned tribunal assessed his income at Rs.7000/- per month, which is on the higher side.
Heard and perused the case file.
The deceased was a young boy of 16 years at the time of FAO No.1483 of 2012 (O&M) 2 accident. After having passed the matriculation examine, he got admission in diploma course of Electronics Mechanical for the session 2010-11 at ITI, Ambala. The admission in a professional course, diploma or degree is through a competent exam. The deceased was admitted in Electronic Mechanical trade, which carries an enormous job potential. The admission in Electronic Mechanical trade itself is sufficient to presume that the deceased was a brilliant student and if his life would not have been shortened in the unfortunate accident, his earning could have been manifolds. Therefore, keeping in view the price index and the cost of living these days, in the considered opinion of this Court, it cannot be said that the income assessed by the learned Tribunal at Rs.7000/- per month for the death of a young boy, who was pursuing a professional course, is on the higher side.
No other point is raised.
In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed in limine.
24.4.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE