The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles for determining compensation under various heads as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and relevant Supreme Court decisions.

JUDGMENT :

1. The claimants have challenged the judgment and award passed on 31.08.2018, passe by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary-IV), Kachchh at Bhuj in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 451 of 2002.

2. Learned advocate Mr. Bhalodi for the appellants submitted that though the employer of deceased, namely Narotambhai Amrutlal Joshi was examined to prove that the deceased was his driver on the vehicle and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the same and thus, stated that the monthly income of the deceased has not been assessed in accordance with the evidence on record and further stated that the claimants are the widow and two minors. It is submitted that claimant No. 3 was, at the relevant time, aged about 1 year and 6 months, who lost her father even before she could attain the age of recognizing the parents and another minor was only 8 and thus, stated that the consortium loss has not been granted as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130.

3. The facts of the case suggest that on 21.03.2002, the deceased was proceeding from Bhachau to Anjar in Tata Sumo car bearing registration No. GJ-12-K-8444. He was driving the vehicle in moderate speed and on the correct side of the road. At about 20:00 hours, when the deceased reached opposite to Bhimasar railway station; 1.5 kms away from Bhimasar on Bhachau – Anjar highway, at that time, respondent No. 1 came driving Truck No. GJ-12-U- 8714 rashly and in negligent manner and in excessive speed, on the wrong side of the road and dashed the Tata Sumo, as a result, the deceased suffered fatal injuries and eventually, succumbed to death.

4. The learned Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record by way of FIR, Panchnama, PM Report etc. has concluded the total negligence of the truck driver and nothing contrary has been brought on record for this Court to take any adverse view.

5. The claimants had examined Narotambhai Amrutlal Joshi as a witness to prove the income of the deceased and he had placed on record a Certificate, exh. 34 to certify that he was paying Rs.6,000/- per month to the deceased driver. However, the income could not be proved by way of any salary slip or any books of accounts or any bank statement but the admitted fact is, on the date of accident, the deceased was a driver in Tata Sumo car. The monthly income of Rs.6,000/- cannot be considered in absence of any supporting evidence but considering the fact that the deceased was a driver and being a skilled person, his income to be considered is Rs.4,000/- per month. At the time of death, the deceased was aged 34 years. Considering the same, 40% prospective rise in income can be considered as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680. The dependents are three in number and accordingly, deducting 1/3rd from the said amount towards personal expenses and applying multiplier of 16, the total dependency loss would come to Rs.7,16,928/- (Rs.4,000/- + 40% = 5,600 – 1,866 = 3,734 x 12 x 16).

5.1 In Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the concept of consortium loss as under:

“8.4 The Insurance Company has submitted that the father and the sister of the deceased could not be treated as dependents, and it is only a mother who can be dependent of her son. This contention deserves to be repelled. The deceased was a bachelor, whose mother had pre-deceased him. The deceased s father was about 65 years old, and an unmarried sister. The deceased was contributing a part of his meagre income to the family for their sustenance and survival. Hence, they would be entitled to compensation as his dependent