IMPORTANT POINT
It is not possible to monetize domestic work done by the deceased house maker. It is reasonable to fix her income at Rs.3,000/- per month.
Even if claimants do not challenge award passed by Tribunal, the Courts are obliged to award just and reasonable compensation even by increasing the compensation.

JUDGMENT

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the High Court of Gujarat in First Appeal No. 4021 of 1998 dated 16.1.2012, the claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation on account of death of Smt. Jayvantiben Jitendra Trivedi in a motor accident on 21.9.1990.

3. Undisputed facts emerging from this case can be briefly stated as under:- On 21.9.1990 respondent No.1 while driving tempo bearing registration No. GQY-4701 in a rash and negligent manner lost the control over it and hit Smt. Jayvantiben Jitendra Trivedi (deceased) who subsequently succumbed to injuries. Appellant No.1 is the husband of deceased and appellant Nos. 2 to 5 are husband's sisters, daughter and father-in-law respectively of the deceased Jayvantiben. Claimants filed claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhuj-Kachchh, Gujarat, interalia, claiming compensation under different heads to the tune of Rs.2,96,480/- along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. The appellants averred in the claim petition that the deceased was a housewife at the time of accident and was aged 22 years and that she was doing embroidery and knitting work and was earning Rs.900/- per month from the said work and was maintaining her family. Respondents No. 1 and 2 did not enter into defence. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company has filed counter statement denying averments made in the claim petition and contended that the compensation claimed is on the higher side.

4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the death of Smt. Jayvantiben Jitendra Trivedi was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. Based on the oral testimony of witnesses, tribunal came to the conclusion that deceased was earning Rs.900/- per month. Relying upon the decision in General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C. vs. Susamma Thomas & Ors. [(1994) 2 SCC 176], the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses and after adopting multiplier of 18, tribunal has calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.2,16,000/-. Adding conventional damages Rs.8,000/-, vide award dated 30.4.1998, the tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.2,24,000/- with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum.

5. Being aggrieved by the award of the tribunal, respondents filed appeal being First Appeal No.4021/1998 under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. Vide impugned judgment dated 16.1.2012, the High Court partly allowed the appeal taking the income of the deceased at Rs.1,350/- per month and deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses, the High Court held that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.2,09,400/- along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization.

6. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the owner has neither filed written statement nor contested the claim petition before the tribunal and while so the insurance company cannot challenge the award on merits. It was further submitted that the High Court did not keep in view that the deceased was self-employed person apart from being a home maker and while so, the High Court erred in reducing the compensation as well as the rate of interest.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that in the absence of furnishing documentary proof like receipts of work, accounts books, any authenticated evidence of income no reliance can be placed on oral testimony to prove that the deceased was earning income as self-employed at the time of accident. Further, it is asserted that the deceased being self-employed therefore no enhancement in income could be lawfully granted in the light of future prospects of the deceased.

8. Admittedly, claimants adduced only oral testimony of the