The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the provisions of the M.V. Act, 1988, particularly regarding safety measures such as wearing headgear on public roads, and relied on legal precedents to determine compensation entitlement.

JUDGMENT :

1. The claimants, widow and minor as heirs deceased have challenged the judgment dated 27.06.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.210/2015 disputing the compensation granted.

2. Mr. Paresh M.Darji, learned advocate for the claimants submitted that the deceased was serving as Manager in Bharat Platochem Co. at Halol, and receiving Rs.11,000/- per month, but since the income could not be proved by examining the proprietor, the Tribunal assessed monthly income of Rs.5,000/- only, and has granted 30% rise for future prospect, and has relied on the P.M. Note to consider the age. Mr. Darji submitted that according to driving license, the date of birth of the deceased is 11.06.1975, and, thus contended that his age, at the time of death, would be 35 years, hence, as per judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors., AIR 2017 SC 5157, 40% prospective rise is required to be assessed.

3. While countering the argument, Advocate Mr. V.C. Thomas submitted that to pray for the income, as pleaded, necessary cogent evidence is required, and when the person working was under the proprietorship, the officer of the Company is required to be examined, or an accountant to prove the salary, and when no such exercise has been undertaken, Mr. Thomas submitted that the assessment of Rs.5,000/- income is just and proper.

4. The case of vehicular accident, as was noted by the Tribunal suggests that on 14.07.2014, the deceased was driving his motorcycle and was going from Halol to Vadodara, and when he reached the place of accident at the periphery of village Lilora, Taluka: Halol on Halol Vadodara Road, a truck bearing registration No.HR-45-A-1871, came from rear side, in excessive speed, in rash and negligent manner endangering human life, and while overtaking another vehicle, the Truck driver lost control on the Truck, and dashed with the motorcycle.

5. The Tribunal on examining the evidence on record with inquest panchnama and P.M. Note had observed 90% negligence of the truck driver and 10% of the deceased, since the deceased had not worn the headgear at the time of accident.

6. Advocate Mr. Darji submitted that facts of the case suggests that Truck had dashed the motorcycle from rear side. The Truck driver had lost the control and, therefore, the accident had occurred.

6.1 Countering the same, referring to section 129 of the M.V. Act, 1988, Mr. Thomas submitted that the rider of the motorcycle is required to wear the Helmet on the public road, as Helmet affords protection to the driver, and stated that had he worn the Helmet, probably, he could have survived; thus, stated that 10% negligence attributed to the motorcyclist is on the evidence on record. Mr. Thomas submitted that such negligent act of the driver is always to be recorded as to set up precedent for the others so as would follow the provisions of law and maintain their own safety, and stated that 10% negligence is required to be considered.

7. This Court is in concurrence with the argument of Advocate Mr. Thomas, since section 129 of the M.V. Act, mandates wearing of headgear at the public place. Such provisions ensures safety of individual, hence, 10% negligence attributed to the deceased would be in accordance to the law.

8. The income has been considered as Rs.5,000/-. The admitted fact on record that the deceased was serving as a Manager in Bharat Platochem Co. at Halol, taking into consideration the date of accident, it would be just and proper to consider his monthly income as Rs.7,500/-. The deceased was 39 years of age at the date of accident, hence, 40% prospective rise is to be considered. The dependents are two in number, therefore, 1/3rd amount is deducted; thus the yearly future loss would come as under: