JUDGMENT

Anuja Prabhudessai, J. - The Appellants herein have challenged the judgment dated 20/01/2018 in M.A.C.P. No. 64 of 2014. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal the Appellants who are the Claimants in the M.A.C.P. No.64 of 2014 have filed appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short 'the M.V. Act').

2. The Appellants shall be hereinafter referred to as the Claimants and the Respondent shall be referred to as 'Insurance Company'.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants-Claimants and learned Counsel for the Respondent-Insurance Company. ADMIT.

4. The Claimants are the legal representatives of deceased Sudhakar Turke who expired in a motor vehicular accident on 22/04/2014 involving Tipper truck bearing registration No. MH-34-AB- 1406. It was the case of the Claimants that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tipper truck. The Claimants stated that the deceased was 30 years of age and he was working at Ganesh Medical Stores, Rajura and earning monthly salary of Rs.6000/-. The Claimants, therefore, filed a petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Insurance Company.

5. The Respondent had denied that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tipper truck. The Respondent further took a defence that the raised plea is of contributory negligence and also denied that the Claimants were entitled for any compensation as claimed.

6. Upon considering the evidence adduced by the respective parties, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused solely due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tipper truck. The Tribunal considered the age of the deceased has 32 years. The Tribunal did not rely upon the salary certificate produced by the Claimants and computed loss of dependency, on the basis of notional income of Rs.3000/- per month. Considering the number of dependents, the Tribunal deducted of amount, towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying multiplier of 16 assessed loss of dependency at Rs.4,32,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. The Tribunal, therefore, awarded total compensation of Rs.4,87,000/-.

7. Shri S.O.Ahmed, learned counsel for the Claimants, submits that the salary certificate visa-a-viz the evidence of P.W.2 Gopal Sarda amply proves that the deceased was employed at the Ganesh Medical Stores and that he was drawing salary of Rs.6000/- per month. He further submits that the Tribunal has erred in not adding any amount towards future prospect and further in not awarding compensation towards loss of estate and any compensation to the Claimants Nos.2, 3 and 4 towards loss of parental consortium and filial consortium. He therefore, submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, needs to be enhanced.

8. Shri D.N.Kukday, learned counsel for the Respondent Insurance company submits that apart from producing the salary certificate, the Claimants had not produced any documentary evidence to prove that the deceased was employed at the Ganesh Medical Stores and that he was drawing salary of Rs.6000/- per month. He submits that P.W.2 Gopal Sarda had not produced attendance register or any other document to prove that the deceased was employed at the medical stores. He therefore, justifies assessment of loss of dependency on the basis of notional income.

9. I have perused the record and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for respective parties.

10. The only question which falls for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal can be considered to be a 'just' compensation.

11. It may be mentioned that in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and ors., (2018) 3 MhL