Assessment of just and proper compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 based on reliable evidence.

JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.

1. This First Appeal is preferred by the appellants against the impugned judgment and award dated 26.03.2019 passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1317 of 2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.8,01,250/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.

2. The factual matrix in the present appeal is as follows:

2.1 The deceased -Shabbirbhai Vajirbhai Malek was riding motorcycle bearing Registration No. GJ-6-DF-2237 and going from Village Ranu to Village Sadhi on 16.09.2012. The deceased was driving his motorcycle on the correct side of the road. When he reached on the road proceeding towards Village Ranu, he came to be knocked down by Eicher Tempo which was being driven in rash and negligent manner. As a result, the deceased received grievous injuries on his head and died on the spot.

2.2 An offence also came to be registered at the Padra Police Station vide I-CR No. 181 of 2012 against the driver of the Eicher Tempo. At the time of death, the deceased was aged about 47 years and he was hale and healthy person. The deceased was mainly engaged in the business of milching and animal husbandry.

2.3 Aggrieved the appellants preferred the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. The learned Tribunal was pleased to issue summons to the respondents. The parties appeared and led evidence in support of their case. After assessing the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal was pleased to award a compensation of Rs.8,01,250/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.

2.4 Aggrieved the appellants have preferred this appeal.

3. Mr. Dhruv K. Dave, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants have brought the cogent evidence on record to show that the deceased was in the business of milching and animal husbandry. He was given a certificate by the State Government for high yield of milk production per day. He was also known doctor in the area around his residence in respect of milch animals. The deceased was also engaged in the business of producing and selling milch animals. It was, therefore, claimed that out of these activities, the combined annual income of the deceased was Rs.2,50,000/- annually. He submits that the appellants had produced on record the certificate of The Sadhi Doodh Udpadak Sahakari Mandali Limited (for short, “Mandali”) whereby the family of the deceased had sold milk worth Rs.2,05,163/- to the Mandali from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013.

4. It is submitted that the official of the Mandali has also deposed by way of oral evidence in support of the said income Certificate from the Mandali. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellants that the said Certificate ought to have been taken in to account while assessing the income of the deceased. However, the learned Tribunal has erred in not taking the same into account and rejecting the same. He submits that even the passbook of the deceased was filed on record by way of evidence which shows that in the year 2011, the cumulative amount deposited in the savings account of the deceased was Rs.60,000/-. Therefore, he submits that the appellants have cogently proved that the income of the deceased was Rs.2,50,000/- annually. He submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly calculated the monthly income of the deceased, and therefore, has committed an error in computing the just and proper compensation in the present case. He further submits that learned Tribunal has erred in awarding just and proper compensation and the First Appeal be allowed.

5. Per contra, Ms. Kirti Pathak, learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company vehemently opposes the appeal and submits that no cogent evidence has been brought on record with respect to the monthly and annual income of the