Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The Tribunal did not properly evaluate the evidence on record in respect of role of the rider of the motor cycle and contributory aspect in respect of the alleged accident.

2. The medical evidence adduced on behalf of the 1st respondent has not been properly appreciated and that the findings of the Tribunal that the 1st respondent suffered a functional disability of 15% is proper.

3. The finding of the Tribunal in considering the notional income of the 1st respondent, who was then a student of 19 years old, studying first year Engineering, at Rs.15,000/- p.m being improper and the manner in which the findings have been recorded under different heads in awarding compensation is not correct.

MVR,J One of the main contentions of the appellant is that the Tribunal considered the monthly notional income of the 1st respondent at Rs.15,000/- p.m and that it is on high side. A request is made in the course of hearing to take it at Rs.12,000/- p.m and since the accident occurred during February, 2014. Though this contention appeared attractive at the first blush, on a reconsideration of the material on record, it is found that it is difficult to subscribe. The reason is that the 1st respondent was a youngster of 19 years old at the time of accident and was admittedly, he was in first year Engineering. Future prospects, which an Engineering student would have, cannot be confined to certain circumstances which are available on record. A broader view is required to be taken in this respect. Possibility of an engineering graduate depending on his proficiency either in is educational pursuits or otherwise on account of acquiring further skills cannot be limited to such scale, as he sought to be projected on behalf of the appellant. Judicial notice can also to be taken of the great scope, which engineering students or Graduates or those professionally trained, can have in the present available eco-system.