IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the calculation of total compensation amount based on dependency loss, consortium loss, funeral expenses, and loss to estate, considering the principles established in relevant case laws.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. The appellants claimants have challenged the judgment dated 12/04/2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kheda at Nadiad in MACP No. 488 of 2014.

2. The facts of the accident noted in the judgment suggests that on 27/02/2014, the deceased Shantibhai was coming from Fatepura to Kapadwanj riding his motor cycle and at about 11:30 a.m. on Kapadwanj-Kathalal road opposite civil court, the driver of the opponent no. 1 came driving ST bus bearing registration no. GJ-18-Y-6051 with full speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle at the rear side and during the accident he sustained serious fatal injuries and died on the spot.

3. Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate for the claimants submitted that the deceased was working in a Mill and also earning from animal husbandry. Mr. Bhalodi, learned advocate submitted that according to the claimants, the deceased was earning about Rs. 15,000/- per month. Mr. Bhalodi, learned advocate submitted that the learned Tribunal has considered Rs. 3,800/- as monthly income for which Mr. Bhalodi, learned advocate submitted that in absence of corroborative documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal ought to have at least place reliance on the minimum wages schedule to grant the compensation accordingly and further stated that the consortium loss should be granted as per Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 and funeral expenses and loss of estate should be granted as per the decision in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680.

4. Mr. Tanmay Karia, learned advocate appearing for the opponent GSRTC submitted that the learned Tribunal has not believed the claimants since the facts of the deceased working in Saw Mill and earning from animal husbandry has not been proved. Mr. Karia, learned advocate submitted that prospective rise in income has to be assessed in accordance with the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) where actually taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 48 years, the prospective rise in income is required to be assessed at 25% while the learned Tribunal has committed error in adding the income with the rise of 30%.

5. The learned Tribunal on considering the evidence of the claimants, had made observation that the claimants have failed to produce any document to show the income of the deceased where the claimants had put up the case that the deceased was worker in Saw Mill and was also doing the work of animal husbandry. However, considering the nature of occupation and the year of accident, the Tribunal assessed the income of Rs. 3,800/-. Such assessment is not in support of any government assessment of the income to the skilled or unskilled person. Considering the fact that he was worker in a Saw Mill, putting the deceased in category of unskilled worker, taking the support of material supplied for the minimum wages schedule of 27/02/2024 the minimum wages for unskilled worker is considered as Rs. 5,580/-. Age of the deceased was 48 years at the time of the accident and in view of the Pranay Sethi (supra), 25% prospective rise required to be assessed and hence, monthly income would come to Rs. 6,975/- (Rs. 5,580/- + 25% rise). The dependents are three in numbers and hence 1/3rd is required to be deducted from Rs. 6,975/- and accordingly the monthly dependency would come to Rs. 4,650/- [Rs. 6,975/- i.e. Rs. 2,325/- (1/3rd of Rs. 6,975/-)]. Considering the said amount annually and applying the multiplier, the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 7,25,400/-. (Rs. 4,650/- x 12 x 13). The claimants are widow, son and mother and hence, consortium loss to each as Rs. 40,000/- is granted as per Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) and accordingly, the total amount would come to Rs. 1,20,000/- under the head of consortium loss. As laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expen