The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, considering factors such as permanent disability, loss of future earnings, and other relevant expenses.

JUDGMENT :

1. Though served, no one has appeared for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant – original claimant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (“the Act” for short) being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Valsad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.122 of 2006 (old MACP No.280 of 1999) on 30.8.2007.

3. The brief facts of the case that emerge from the record are as under.

3.1 That on11.8.1995 at around 2.30 am the claimant was travelling in Maruti Car No.GJ 15 C 4447 which was being driven by the opponent No.1 and was in the ownership of the opponent No.2 and was going from Udaipur to Kesaryaji and when they reached near Govardhan Vilas near Kesaryaji within the jurisdiction of Udaipur Police Chowki, the opponent No.4 came driving Maruti Gypsy No.DD 03 1775, which was in the ownership of the opponent No.5, rashly and negligently and came on the wrong side of the road and dashed with the Maruti Car in which the claimant was travelling. The claimant suffered serious injuries on his head and fracture on his right femur and also serious injuries on his face, his right eye was seriously damaged which disfigured his face and he also sustained other injuries on his body. That the Maruti Car was insured with the opponent No.3 and Maruti Gypsy was insured with the opponent No.6. It is the say of the claimant that due to the injuries, he has taken treatment at Government Hospital, Kesaryaji and thereafter as an indoor patient at Rajasthan Hospital, Ahmedabad and further treatment at Ankola Hospital, Mumbai where bone grafting was done and he has spent a huge amount on medical treatment. That the claimant has claimed for an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- inter alia from the opponents for the injuries sustained in the accident.

4. Notices were duly served to all the opponents and the opponent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 have remained absent, whereas the opponent Nos.3 and 6 appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed their written statement at Exh.50 mainly denying all the contents of the claim petition and have further stated that the accident has occurred due to dash by some unknown vehicle and that vehicle has not been joined as a party to the claim petition and hence, the claim petition must be dismissed.

5. The learned Tribunal, after having considered the evidence on record, held all the opponents jointly and severally responsible for the accident and ordered the opponents to pay the amount of Rs.1,95,000/- to the claimant with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the application till realization. The learned Tribunal has considered the income of the claimant to be of Rs.5000/- per month and held that permanent disability of the claimant is 25% and accordingly, used the multiplier of 9 and awarded the amount of Rs.1,35,000/- as loss of future prospective income, Rs.15,000/- towards pain, shock and sufferings, Rs.30,000/- towards loss of actual income for six months and Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses, attendant expenses and special diet and in all, awarded the amount of Rs.1,95,000/- jointly and severally from the opponents with interest at the rate of 9% till realization.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid award, the appellant – original claimant has approached this Court by way of this appeal.

7. I have heard learned advocate Mr.A.V.Prajapati for the appellant – original claimant and learned advocate for Mr.Palak Thakkar for the respondent Nos.3 and 6. Though served, the respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 have not appeared.

8. It is mainly contended by Mr.A.V.Prajapati, learned advocate appearing for the appellant – original claimant that the learned Tribunal has erred in considering the income of the claimant at Rs.5000/- per month when in fact the learned Tribunal ought to have apprec