The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles set forth in the Sarla Verma case to determine compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, including the assessment of prospective income, adjustment of the multiplier, and consideration of all sources of the deceased's income.

Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

1. The present First Appeal is filed at the instance of the claimant, for proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and is directed against the award passed by the MACP Tribunal (Main), whereby, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded the sum of Rs. 7,78,000/-. The claimants by way of prayer has prayed the amount with interest as claimed in the original claim petition from the date of filing of application till realization.

2. The claimants have felt dissatisfied with the same, therefore, this appeal for enhancement is filed.

3. Nor the owner of the vehicle has preferred any appeal or cross objection and they have accepted the judgment as per the records. The only question which arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the Tribunal below was justified in awarding sum of Rs. 7,78,000/- as against the claim of Rs. 13,00,000/- on the death of predecessor in interest of the claimant.

4. The short facts and background as it emerges from the record is that on 18.07.1993, deceased Nayabha Mapbha Ker was traveling in Jeep No. GBI-7896 alongwith other persons and the said jeep was being driven by opp No. 4; that the said jeep was proceeding towards Mithapur. That at about 3-00 A.M., opponent No. 1 came driving truck No. GJ-10-T-747 from Mithapur side with full lights, in rash and negligent manner and with full speed and dashed with the oncoming jeep - car and caused the accident, as a result of which the persons sitting in the jeep car were seriously injured and deceased Nayabhai Mapbha was firstly removed to Tata Hospital, Mithapur where his condition became worst and therefore, he was advised to take to Ashok Gondhiya Hospital, Rajkot, where Nayabha Mapbha Ker died soon. The deceased was 41 years old at the time of accident. He had studied upto B.A.B. Ed. And since last 7 years, he was serving as President of Taluka Panchayat. He was a member of Taluka Panchayat, Dwarka since 13 years. The deceased had agricultural land and his income was Rs. 50,000/- to 60,000/- per annum. He was also working as contractor in different fields and was getting income from that business also. That, due to sudden accidental death of Nayabha Mapbha, his family has lost love and affection of the deceased and they have become support-less. That taking into consideration the progressive career of the deceased and his income, the claimants have claimed the aforesaid amount.

5. Mr. Thakkar, the learned advocate appearing for the applicants submitted that there was an evidence on record to indicate that the deceased was earning the amount which has been awarded, but the same is on the lower side as the agricultural income given as per the income tax return is Rs. 55,000/-. The learned Tribunal has erred on three counts. That, it has not considered the prospective income of the deceased. Either from the agricultural auction or from his work or his honorarium which he was getting and the employer is not as per the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 and has submitted that the multiplier should have been of 14. Relying on the other judgments of the Apex Court, he has further submitted that the consortium amount is also on lower side compared to what is awarded to the claimants.

6. As against this, learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati appearing for New India Assurance Company with which both the vehicles were insured has submitted that compensation given is just and proper and there is no need to interfere with the same. According to him, on the death of the deceased, the agricultural activities remained the same as even as per the oral testimony of the widow of the deceased. As the deceased was the President of the Taluka Panchayat, was normally outside and was not doing agricultural work himself, but was getting it done through other persons. Therefore, he has submitted that as per