JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) by appellants-claimants calling in question the correctness and legality of the judgment and award passed in M.A.C.P. No. 6335 of 2004 (Old M.A.C.P. No. 2002 of 2003) by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Dahod (hereinafter be referred to as “the Tribunal”) whereunder claim petition filed has been allowed in part and a total compensation of Rs. 6,60,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum has been awarded as against claim of Rs. 12,00,000/-.

2. Facts in nutshell which has led to filing of this appeal are as under.

3. The husband of the first claimant and father of second claimant, namely, Manabhai Bhanabhai Vankar was serving as a principal in the primary school was proceeded towards Village: Kali Dungri for his official meeting on 19.07.2003 and was waiting for vehicle and, therefore, he boarded one rickshaw bearing Registration No. GJ-17-U-3649 from Village: Bhuval to Village: Kali Dungri and when reached near bridge of Ujjal river, the driver of the offending vehicle lost control over the steering, since, he was driving in rushed and negligent manner dashed with the stone lying on right side of the road and due to that, the deceased Manabhai Bhanabhai Vankar had fallen down from the rickshaw and sustained bodily injury. When the deceased Manabhai Vankar was taken to the hospital, he died on the way. Hence, a claim petition being M.A.C.P. No. 6335 of 2004 (old M.A.C.P. No. 2002 of 2003) came to be filed by the wife and son of the deceased seeking compensation for the death of Manabhai Bhanabhai Vankar. The Tribunal after evaluating the pleadings and oral and documentary evidence tendered by the parties as noticed hereinabove awarded total compensation of Rs. 6,60,000/- under two heads i.e. (1) Rs. 6,38,000/- towards future loss of income and (2) Rs. 22,000/- towards funeral, transporation and pain, shock and suffering in all Rs. 6,60,000/- with running interest @ 7.5% p.a.

4. It came to be held by the Tribunal that said amount was ordered to be awarded to the dependents. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, this appeal has been filed.

5. I have heard Mr. Parthiv Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the appellants-claimants and Mr. Palak Thakkar, learned advocate appearing for the insurer-respondent No. 3. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are served and unrepresented.

6. It is the contention of the learned advocate appearing for the appellants that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in awarding abysmally very less compensation without considering the material evidence available on record and in particular he would draw the attention of this Court to the documentary evidence and contend that income of the deceased, as per the record, has not been considered by the learned Tribunal as the deceased was serving as principal in the Government Primary School and his salary certificate was produced on record. He would submit that even the future prospective income was also not considered by the learned Tribunal, nor proper multiplier was applied while considering the amount of compensation. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in not considering the fact that the deceased was having agricultural land and the revenue record to that effect has been produced on record by the appellants vide Exhibit 35 to 39 wherein the name of the deceased-Manabhai Bhanabhai Vankar was shown along with others but that was not considered by the learned Tribunal and completely ignored and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed serious error of facts and law in not considering the agricultural income of the deceased. He has also submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded just and reasonable compensation. Hence, he prays for enhancement of compen