S.G. Shah, J.

1. Pursuant to order dated 17.10.2015 by my predecessor, matter is taken up for final disposal. Hence, admit.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rathin Raval for the appellant - Insurance Company and learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi for respondents No. 1 to 8 being original claimants. The respondents No. 9 and 10 being driver and owner of the vehicle in question and opponent Nos. 1 and 2 in claim petition, are though duly served, remained absent. Amongst them, respondent No. 9 i.e. opponent No. 1 - driver was absent before the Tribunal also; whereas respondent No. 10 i.e. opponent No. 2 was represented by an advocate before the Tribunal. However, he did not appear before this Court, though duly served.

3. The appellant - Insurance Company has challenged the judgment and award dated 30.4.2015 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Dahod in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 110 of 2013. By such judgment, the Tribunal has awarded total Rs. 12,32,000/- as compensation with 9% interest and costs, which is ordered to be recovered by the claimants from the respondents jointly and severally for the accidental death of one Jadiyabhai Virjibhai Palas. The Insurance Company has, however, challenged the award mainly on the ground of quantum of compensation contending that very excessive amount of compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal.

4. Therefore, minute details of nature of incident, its result and history of litigation are not much material to be produced herein when it is well described in the impugned judgment as well as in the pleading before both the Courts.

5. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, following facts are relevant to be recollected here to ascertain that whether the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation and that whether there is any scope of reduction in amount of compensation based upon the submission by the appellant.

5.1 Incident:-

"On 20.2.2013, when victim Jadiyabhai Virjibhai Palas was walking on his foot and going towards Village: Tindori on left side of road near Usarvan Patiya, the respondent No. 8 came driving his motorcycle from Limbdi and going towards Dahod, because of rash and negligent driving, he dashed with the victim, who sustained serious injuries and succumbed during the treatment. The FIR was lodged and proceedings were initiated against the driver of the vehicle. Therefore, since this is a simple case of accident whereby a vehicle has dashed the victim, which resulted into his death, the driver, owner and Insurance Company are absolutely liable to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the victim, who died due to accidental injuries."

6. For quantum, following details are relevant:-

Name of the victim	Jadiyabhai Virajibhai Palas
Result of the incident	Fatal
Age of the victim	38 years
Earning activity	Masonary work and agriculture
Income of the victim	Rs. 7,000/- p.m.
Marital status	Married
Claim	Widow and 7 minor children
Quantum of compensation	Rs. 10,92,000 – Loss of further income (Rs. 5,000+30%)x12x14; Less : 1,09,200 – 1/10th personal expenses; Rs. 9,82,000 – 9/10th Loss of dependency; Rs. 10,000 – Pain, shock and suffering; Rs. 25,000 – Funeral expenses; Rs. 10,000 – Loss of estate; Rs. 5,000 – Transport Expenses Rs. 10,32,800 – Total compensation Add : Rs. 1,00,000 – Loss of consortium to claimant No. 1; Add: Rs. 1,00,000 – Loss of love, care and protection to minor Nos. 2 to 8 Rs. 12,32,000 – Total Compensation

7. As against above award, it is contended by Insurance Company that since there is no proper proof of income of the victim, his income cannot be considered as Rs. 5,000/- p.m. and thereafter, there cannot be 30% increase as prospective income, but notional income of Rs. 3,000/- can only be considered. It is also contended that in absence of suitable job, no pros