JUDGMENT :

R.M. CHHAYA, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and award dated 2.6.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux) and 7th Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra in Motor Accident Claim Petition no. no.304 of 2014, the appellant - insurance Company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2. Following facts emerge from the record of the appeal:-

That, the accident occurred at 07:00 p.m. on 3.1.2014 near Vejalpur Bagayat Kendra. It is the case of the original claimants that while the deceased – Punambhai was travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration no. GJ-17 AM-7939 as a pillion rider, a dog came in front of the bike, because of which, respondent no.1 who was driving the motorcycle had to apply sudden brake, because of which, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. As the record unfold, the deceased was admitted at Referral Hospital, Kalol and thereafter, was taken to Supeda Hospital for further treatment and was thereafter admitted to New Life Hospital, Godhra. However, the deceased was declared dead. An FIR was lodged with Vejalpur Police Station being CR no. I- 3/2014 and thereafter, the original claimants have preferred the present claim petition under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-. One of the claimant was examined at Exh.13 and the original claimants also relied upon the documentary evidence, such as, complaint at Exh.15, Panchnama at Exh.16, inquest Panchnama at Exh.17, P.M. report at Exh.18, R.C. Book at Exh.19, insurance policy at Exhs.20 and 40/1, certificate of income of the deceased at Exhs.23 and 28, charge-sheet at Exh.21, school leaving certificate at Exh.22 and learning driving licence at Exh.35. The Tribunal framed issues at Exh.10 and after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was serving with Horticultural Experiment Station, Vejalpur and had a salary of Rs.20,165/- per month. The Tribunal did not consider the contention of the original claimants that the deceased had an additional income of Rs.5,000/- as agricultural income and therefore, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.21,320/- per month. Following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and after deduction of one-third, the Tribunal determined the compensation under the head of future loss of income at Rs.28,82,463/- and over and above that, the Tribunal also awarded Rs.70,000/- as compensation under different conventional heads including funeral expenses and thus, granted total compensation of Rs.29,52,463/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. The Tribunal, while examining the question of liability, considered the insurance policy at Exh.20 and Mark 40/1 and 46 and after considering the provision of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and so also the provision of Section 149 of the Act, in particular, directed the appellant to satisfy the award and thereafter, recovered the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

3. Heard Mr. Maulik J. Shelat, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Chetankumar Shah, learned advocate for respondents no.1 and 2 - original claimants. Though served, no one appears for the respondent no.3.

4. This Court, vide order dated 11.6.2019, was pleased to issue notice for final disposal and hence, the learned advocates were heard for final disposal and this Court has also perused the original record and proceedings.

5. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs. Minor Himaniben & Ors., reported in 2016 ACJ 1371 and the judgment of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limit