S.G. Shah, J.

Heard learned advocate Mr. Hakim for appellant. Respondent No.1 is deleted from the array of the parties whereas learned advocate Mr. Hakim for the appellant has prayed to dispense with service of notice upon unserved respondent No.2 relying upon the provisions of Order 41 Rule 14(4) of the C.P.C read with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India between A. Robert Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1999) AIR SC 2977.

2. The bare reading of above two references made it clear that if any litigant is served but absent before the trial court and thereafter if he could not be served then notice upon unserved respondents can be dispensed with. Whereas, so far as such appeals or proceedings for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is concerned, if there is no issue or dispute regarding liability of insurance company and when issue in the appeal is limited to quantum of compensation only, Hon'ble Supreme Court has confirmed that appeal can be proceeded further dispensing with the notice upon driver and owner of the offending vehicle when their insurance company has no option but to indemnify them. Therefore, request by learned advocate for the appellant to dispense with the notice is accepted.

3. Similarly, respondent Nos.3 and 4 though duly served remained absent whereas respondent No.5 is represented by learned advocate Mr.H.S. Shah, who is also heard on merits.

4. It is undisputed fact that practically by impugned award dated 22.3.2004, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Vadodara has while awarding compensation to the present appellant being applicant before it exonerated the liability of opponent Nos.4 and 5 before it who are respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein. Thereby, the award was passed against original opponent Nos.2 and 3 being owner and insurer of offending vehicle amongst which opponent No.2 owner though duly served did not appear before the Tribunal whereas opponent No.3 being respondent No.3 herein had though contested the claim petition, they have chosen not to appear in this appeal. Therefore, practically, appeal is to be decided ex-parte against the concerned respondents who are actually liable to pay compensation to the appellant. Thereby, in other words, this appeal is non-contested.

5. It is undisputed fact that appellant is driver of one of the vehicles which were involved in the accident and, therefore, this is the case of contributory negligence between the claimant and other tort-feasor being driver of truck No.GJ1T-7006.

It is undisputed fact that on 2.12.1991, when appellant was driving his truck No.GJ-6-Z3813 towards Ahmedabad on Mumbai - Ahmedabad highway while returning back from Bangalore with soap boxes loaded in it; near Kasa police station in Thane District, one truck No.GJ-1T-7006 was coming from the opposite direction i.e. from Ahmedabad side and, there was head on collision between both the vehicles which resulted into combined fracture of tibia, segmental fracture of fibula and fracture of medial mellows of the appellant. It is undisputed fact that for such injuries he has to undergo long operative treatment and has to spend medical and other expenses and, therefore, he has claimed in all Rs. 5,00,000/- towards compensation from owner and insurer of offending vehicle as well as from his own employer and insurance company of his truck.

6. After allowing both the sides to adduce their evidence and to prove their case or to rebut the case of otherside, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara had by impugned judgment and award dated 22.3.2004 considered the quantum of compensation as under: -

Rs.35,000/- - mental pain, shock and suffering

Rs.80,000/- - medical expenses and rich diet

Rs.10,000/- - transportation & attendant charges

Rs.1,21,500/- - future loss of income

========

Rs.2,78,500/- TOTAL

========

7. For arriving at the quantum of future loss of income, Tribunal has considered Rs. 3,000/- as monthly income of the appellant and 22.5% disablement, whereas 15 as suitable mult