JUDGMENT :

R.M.CHHAYA, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 31.8.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), in Claim Petition no.403/01, 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:-

2.1 That the accident took place on 23.3.2001. It is the case of the appellants-original claimants that the deceased was driving his motorcycle bearing registration no. GJ-21 A- 7011 and one Budhiyabhai Halpati was the pillion rider and was proceeding towards Gandevi from nursery of Rajeshbhai. It is the case of the appellants-original claimants that the motorcycle was being driven in a very slow and careful manner and when it reached the scene of occurrence, a truck bearing registration no. GJ-15 U-5110 came from the wrong side and dashed with motorcycle because of which the deceased sustained fatal injuries and ultimately, succumb to the same. An FIR was lodged with Gandevi Police Station at Exh.90 by the pillion rider himself.

2.2 It was the case of the appellants-original claimants that the deceased was 45 years old. However, the Tribunal has considered the deceased to be of 50 years old as per the postmortem note in absence of any evidence. It was the case of the appellants-original claimants that the deceased had huge agricultural farm and was running a nursery in the name of Rajesh nursery. It is further the case of the appellants-original claimants that he had also further income by way of transport business and had also income from dairy farming in the name of Vasundhara dairy. On that basis, the appellants-original claimants filed the present claim petition under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs.75,00,000/-. The appellants-original claimants examined Ishvarbhai at Exh.69 and Rasikbhai at Exh.73 in order to prove the income. The Tribunal considered the income of the deceased from all 4 different vocations at Rs.2,51,200/- and after deducting one-third, applied multiplier of 13 and awarded a sum of Rs.21,77,500/- as compensation under the loss of dependency and also awarded further amount of Rs.22,000/- towards loss of estate and consortium including funeral expenses and thus, awarded total compensation of Rs.21,99,500/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization and being aggrieved by the same, the appellant – insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

3. Heard Mr. Ajay R. Mehta, learned advocate for Mr. Rajni H. Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant – insurance Company and Mr. Shivang Shah, learned advocate for the original claimants. Though served, no one appears for the other respondents.

4. Mr. Ajay R. Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant has taken this Court through the depositions of Sumanbhai Exh.62, Ishvarbhai Exh.69 and Rasikbhai at Exh.73 and contended that except the said evidence, there is no corroborative evidence to even remotely prove that the income of the deceased as claimed by the original claimants ever exist. Referring to the same set of evidence, Mr. Mehta contended that on the contrary, it has come on record that the income from agriculture, nursery as well as dairy farming, has increased after the accident. According to Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant, the land and the business of nursery and dairy farming has continued even after the death of Rajeshbhai and at the most, the original claimants would be entitled to supervisory loss of the deceased and not the total income as calculated by the Tribunal. It was thus contended by Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant that the income as determined by the Tribunal is very excessive in nature which deserves to be sliced down. On the aforesaid aspects, Mr. Mehta con