Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

24. The P.W.1 has stated that, her son was completion of Diploma joined to BHEL as Apprentice on 14.09.2010 and was getting an Apprentice Stipend of Rupees 7,403-87 and completed Apprenticeship training on 13.09.2011. She has further stated that, after completion of Apprenticeship, her son joined to B.E. in E and C at JSS Academy of Technical Education (JSS ATE), Bangalore. She has further stated that, her son was studying 7th Semester Bachelor of Engineering in Electronics and Communications (E & C) at JSS Academy of Technical Education (JSS ATE), Bangalore. She has further stated that, apart from studies, her son was taking tuitions for students of SSLC and also working as Data Entry Operator and totally earning more than Rupees 15,000/- p.m. She has further stated in her cross- examination that, in the year 2010, her deceased son had completed his Diploma Course and at the time of accident, her deceased son was studying in 7th Semester in B.E. The Petitioners have produced Ex.P.10 SSLC Marks Card relating to deceased, Ex.P.11 Electronics and Communication Engineering Marks Card relating to deceased, Ex.P.12 Certificates dated 03.10.2011 relating to deceased, Ex.P.13 Certificates relating to deceased, Ex.P.14 Pay Slips 3 in numbers, Ex.P.15 College Fee Receipts 3 in numbers, Ex.P.16 College Identity Card relating to deceased and Ex.P.17 B.E. VIth Semester in Electronics and Communication Engineering Marks Card relating to deceased. No doubt, the Petitioners have not produced the Marks Cards relating to the deceased in respect of the 1st to 5th Semester in Electronics and Communication Engineering. The same has clearly admitted by the P.W.1 in her cross-examination. Further, though the P.W.1 in her cross-examination has stated that, she has no hurdle to produce the said Marks Cards, the Petitioners did not care to produce the said documents. But, it no way affect to consider the avocation of the deceased at the time of accident, as, the above said oral evidence of P.W.1 as well as contents of the said material documents clearly disclosed that, at the time of accident, the deceased was studying in 7th Semester B.E. From this, it appears that, at the time of accident, the deceased was B.E. Student. Further, Ex.P.14 Pay Slips disclosed that, the deceased has received Apprentice Stipend for the month of March 2011, October 2010 and November 2010. It is further clear from the contents of Ex.P.14 Pay Slips that, the deceased received Rupees 7,403-87 during March - 2011, Rupees 7,002-67 during October 2010 and Rupees 6,679/- during November 2010. But, only based on the said Ex.P.14 Pay Slips as well as oral evidence of P.W.1, it cannot be believed and accept that, the deceased apart from his studies, he was taking tuition to the students of SSLC and also he was working as a Data Entry Operator and from this, he was earning more than Rupees 15,000/- p.m., as, to consider the same, no authenticated documents are produced by the Petitioners. Even the Petitioners have not produced the Bank Statements relating to the deceased to consider his earnings. Further, the Petitioners have not examined the employer of the deceased. Further, the amount covered under Ex.P.14 Pay Slips, are Apprentice Stipend and it is not permanent source of income. Hence, the said evidence of P.W.1 relating to the income of Rupees 15,000/- p.m., relating to the deceased cannot be believed and accept. However, at the time of accident, the deceased was 25 years old and he was studying in 7th Semester B.E., by consider the same, this Tribunal feels that, it is just, proper and necessary to consider the notional income of the deceased is of Rupees 13,000/- p.m., which is believable and acceptable one. Hence, the notional income of the deceased is considered as Rupees 13,000/- per month at the time of accident.