Point of Law: Parents are the claimants, they would also be entitled to “filial consortium”. Having considered this aspect, this Court feels that what is awarded is just compensation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 18.10.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Godhra in MACP No.864/2010, 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 on 28.7.2010 at about 06:00 a.m. Record indicates that the deceased Vajesinh was going on his cycle from Village Panchela to Piplod for attending his work. Record indicates that at that juncture, Honda Activa bearing registration no. GJ17 AC8585 being driven by the original respondent no.1 came from Piplod side and dashed with the cycle from behind. The deceased received serious injuries and was admitted to the hospital and ultimately, succumbed to the same. An FIR bearing CR no. I-117/10 was lodged with the jurisdictional Police Station and the present claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

3. It was the case of the original claimants that the deceased was 28 years old on the date of the accident and was earning Rs.6,000/-per month from paper agency as well as from agriculture. The wife of the deceased Vajesinh was examined at Exh.26 and the original claimants also relied upon the documentary evidences, such as, FIR Exh.17, inquest Panchnama Exh.18, Panchnama of the place of incident Exh.19, driving licence of original respondent no.1 Exh.20, R.C. Book of the vehicle involved in the accident Exh.21, insurance policy Exh.22, postmortem report Exh.23, medical bills Exh.24, Pedhinama of the heirs of the deceased Exh.25, extracts of village form no.7/12 and village form no.8 of the land of the father of the deceased Exh.26 and bills of Sandesh newspaper from January, 2010 to July, 2010 Exh.27. The appellant – insurance Company did not adduce any evidence. The Tribunal, after examining the manner in which the accident has occurred, came to the conclusion that the driver of Activa was solely negligent. As far as the income is concerned, the Tribunal has, after appreciation of the evidence on record, believed the case of the original claimants that the deceased was running a paper agency – Sandesh newspaper and was earning as an agent. Relying upon the bills for the months of January, 2010 to July, 2010 and upon appreciation of such evidence on record, the Tribunal determined the income of the deceased from paper agency at Rs.3,000/- and Rs.500/- - from agriculture and thus, determined the total income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/- per month. The Tribunal was also pleased to give prospective income to the tune of 50% and after deducting one-fifth towards personal expenses, applied multiplier of 17 and awarded a sum of Rs.8,56,800/- as compensation towards the loss of dependency, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.75,310/- towards medical expenses and thus, awarded a total compensation of Rs.9,57,200/- ( rounded figure) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant – insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

4. Heard Mr. Sunil Parikh, learned advocate for the appellant – insurance Company and Mr. Vishal Mehta, learned advocate for the original claimants. Though served, no one appears for the other respondents. I have also perused the original record and proceedings.

5. Mr. Sunil Parikh, learned advocate for the appellant has contended that the original claimants have adduced no evidence to even remotely prove the income. Mr. Parikh further submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in determining the income of the deceased from paper agency at Rs.3,000/- and Rs.500/- - as income from agriculture. Mr. Parikh further contended that such agriculture land is joint property and th