IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. FAO (MVA) No.:349/2008 Decided on: 16.7.2008 Smt. Chemi Devi …Appellant. Versus Sant Ram and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the Appellant : Mr. R.R. Rahi, Advocate. For the respondents : None. Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral) This FAO (MVA) has been directed against the award dated 3.4.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Shimla in MAC No. 36-S/2 of 2005. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this FAO are that Sh. Suresh Kumar was son of the petitioner. Sh. Suresh Kumar sustained multiple injuries in the accident, which took place on 21.12.2002 and succumbed to his injuries on the spot. The vehicle belonged to respondent No.1 and was being driven by Surinder Singh, respondent No.2. The claim petition was filed before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. ten lakhs. The 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,67,000/- to the petitioner vide award dated 3.4.2008. Mr. R.R. Rahi, Advocate strenuously argued that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has not correctly assessed the income of late Sh. Suresh Kumar. According to him, the income of Shri Suresh Kumar was to be assessed at Rs. 5,000/- per month. I have heard Mr. R.R. Rahi at length. Sh. Suresh Kumar was approximately 16 years of age. He was undergoing the training of motor mechanic in the workshop of Sh. Randeep Singh Rathore. He was not paid any salary by Sh. Randeep Singh Rathore. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has correctly fixed Rs. 3,000/- per month as income of the deceased Sh. Suresh Kumar. Mr. R.R. Rahi could not substantiate his plea that the income of Sh. Suresh Kumar should have been assessed at Rs. 5,000/- per month. The appellant ought to have examined either some owner of the workshop or mechanic to establish that a motor mechanic after his training gets about Rs. 5,000/- per month or more. Mere statement that deceased could earn more than Rs. 5,000/- per month cannot constitute legal evidence to enhance the compensation. In view of these observations, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. July 16, 2008 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*