JUDGMENT

Nidhi Gupta, J.

CM 20528-CII/2015

Since there is delay of 187 days in filing the appeal, the aforesaid application has been filed seeking condonation of said delay. The application is supported by an affidavit of the appellant.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, duly supported by the affidavit of the appellant and the fact that the same has not been contested by Respondents by filing reply thereto, the application is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

Main Appeal.

3. Present appeal has been filed by the sole claimant/mother of the deceased, seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.6,78,000/- granted by the Ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ld. Tribunal') vide Award dated 12.11.2014 passed in MACT Case No.14881(23112) of 2013 in a petition under section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT .

4. Brief facts of the case are that the Ld. Tribunal upon appraisal of the pleadings and evidence adduced before it by the parties, concluded that deceased Suhail Gupta had died due to injuries suffered by him in a road side accident that took place on 7.7.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of Trailer (Tralla) bearing registration No. PB-04-N-4386 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle') being driven by Respondent no.1; owned by Respondent no.2; and insured by Respondent no.3. Respondents have been held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement inter-alia, on the ground that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side. It is submitted by learned counsel that the deceased was working as a Computer Clerk in Jeevanjot Hospital from where he was drawing monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. It is submitted that the deceased was also working part time with Sahil Collections w.e.f. 1.4.2012 on a salary of Rs.5000/- per month till his death. It is submitted that accordingly, the Tribunal is in grave error in taking the income of the deceased as only Rs.4000/- per month.

6. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel that he was not pressing the income of the deceased in regard to the Rs.5000/- earned by him from his employment with Sahil Creations, as the Income Tax Returns produced by Mr. Sahil Gupta, Proprietor of Sahil Creations, depicted no payment of Rs.5000/- per month to the deceased and also in view of the fact that said Sahil Gupta is brother of the deceased.

7. It is submitted that however, cogent evidence has been led by the claimant to show that the deceased was working as a Computer Clerk at Jeevanjot hospital and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. As such, Ld. Tribunal is in error in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.4000/- per month only.

8. It is then submitted that even if salary of the deceased is not taken to be Rs.10,000/- per month even then monthly income of the deceased should be taken as per minimum wages payable to a skilled worker at the relevant time in view of the fact that the deceased was admittedly 10+2 pass. It is submitted that as per Notification dated 1.3.2013 issued by the State of Punjab the minimum wages admissible to a skilled worker was Rs.7400/- per month and that of an unskilled worker was Rs.5700/- per month.

9. It is next submitted that no consortium has been awarded to the claimant-mother who is entitled to Rs. 40,000/- by way of parental consortium. It is lastly submitted that rate of interest @ 7.5% per annum be granted from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent Insu