The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation for the deceased based on the notional income and future prospects, as guided by the principles established in relevant Supreme Court judgments.

JUDGMENT :

GAURANG KANTH, J.

1. In the present Appeal, the Appellant who is the mother of the deceased minor, is impugning the Award dated 15.09.2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, MACT, Delhi in Suit No. 177/2009 titled as Anita vs. Raju. The Appellant prays for the enhancement of the compensation amount. Vide the said award, the learned Tribunal was pleased to grant a total compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rs. 2,40,000/- towards loss of income, Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of Estate and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of presentation till the date of realization in favour of the Appellant herein.

2. The unfortunate accident dated 26.04.2009 resulted in the death of Alekh Kumar, who was aged 13 years and 4 months and was studying in the 10th-11th standard at the time of the alleged incident. On the day of the fateful accident, Alekh Kumar was travelling pillion with Vineet (PW-2) on his scooter. At Jhuggi Village Sindhora Kalan, Sarai Rohilla, they were hit from behind by a bus bearing no. DL-1PB-3040 that was being recklessly and rapidly driven by Respondent No. 1. The deceased died in the accident which resulted after being falling on the road and being run over by the negligent vehicle. FIR No. 110/2009 dated 26.04.2009 was registered against the Respondent No. 1, the bus driver of Delhi Roadways, under Sections 279/337/304 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station P.S. Sarai Rohilla, New Delhi.

3. The Appellant, mother of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. It is her case that her son was studying and was earning Rs. 6,000/- p.m. by selling vegetables on Rehri. However, the Appellant could not adduce any proof to the said effect and hence the learned Tribunal presumed the income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- p.a. as per second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and calculated the loss of income as Rs. 2,40,000/- (Rs. 15,000 x 16). In addition, the learned Tribunal granted Rs. 5,000/- each towards ‘Funeral Expenses’ and ‘Loss of Estate’. The learned Tribunal granted interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of presenting the claim petition till realization.

4. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount awarded as compensation by the learned Tribunal, the Appellant preferred the present Appeal against the impugned award under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of the compensation awarded to her.

5. Mr. Saurav Kansal, learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the deceased was around 15 years old and was in good health. The deceased was a student who supported his mother by doing part time jobs like selling vegetables and giving tuition to children. The deceased was a brilliant student who studied hard despite the family's poor financial situation and was confident of a bright future prospects. Therefore, it may be assumed that he had high aspirations for his future. It is the contention of the Appellant that the learned Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- p.a. based on the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Counsel for the Appellant further argued that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others vs. DTC and Another, 2009 (6) SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680, the Appellant is entitled for enhancement of the compensation.

6. Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 contended that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of Vineet (PW-2). He further submitted that the Appellant has failed to prove the income of the deceased by leading any evidence and hence the learned Tribunal had rightly fixed the income of the deceased based on the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

7. This Court has heard arguments advanced