IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper assessment of compensation in motor vehicle accident cases, considering factors such as loss of dependency, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses, in accordance with relevant legal provisions and judicial precedents.

JUDGMENT :

1. Challenge is given to the judgment dated 27.10.2016 passed by the MACT (Main), Dahod in MACP no.213 of 2007.

2. Learned advocate Mr. Hakim for the appellants submitted that the deceased was a skilled labourer and was maintaining the family of nine and submitted that the Tribunal had not considered the income in accordance to the evidence. Advocate Mr. Hakim further stated that the learned Tribunal was required to take assistance of minimum wages schedule to assess the income and further submitted that the prospective rise in income has not been considered properly and that the amount under the head of loss of consortium is required to be granted as per the decision in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and funeral expenses should have been granted of Rs.15,000/- as per the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Chirayu Mehta is present before this Court. He submitted that he had withdrawn the leave note. However, the system could not technically accept the withdrawal. Advocate Mr. Mehta submitted that the income factum has to be proved by way of evidence on record since there was no documentary evidence to support the claim and stated that the actual income at the time of the death of the accident has been appropriately assessed by the Tribunal and further stated that the Tribunal has erred in considering 50% prospective rise in income, where actually, it ought to have been 40% in accordance to the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and submitted that by deducting one-fifth towards personal expenses, loss of dependency amount is just and appropriate.

4. The case of the claimants as was urged before the Tribunal suggests that on 9.3.2007, the deceased Rameshbhai was returning after attending occasion of Chandla Vidhi which was at his relative’s house. He was in company of his family members in the vehicle bearing registration no. GJ-17 U-5701. It was stated that on curve on the cross roads, suddenly opponent no.1 – driver of the vehicle applied brakes and the vehicle turned turtle. As a result, the persons in the vehicle sustained injuries and the deceased Rameshbhai owing to the injuries succumbed to death. A complaint was lodged with Limkheda Police Station bearing I-CR no.58/2007. The learned Tribunal on assessing the evidence on record has considered the sole negligence of the driver of the vehicle bearing registration no. GJ-17 U-5701. The FIR, Panchnama of the place of occurrence, inquest Panchnama and postmortem note were perused by the Tribunal to answer issue no.1 in affirmative.

5. The deceased at the time of the death was noted to be of 32 years of age as per the inquest Panchnama. The claimants had stated that the deceased was doing carpentry work and also was possessing agricultural land and he was earning income of Rs.6,000/-. However, the learned Tribunal found that no document was produced to support the say of income, nor anything on record to describe his skill. The learned Tribunal has considered his income as Rs.1,728/- per month. This assessment is made on the basis of the minimum wages schedule as declared by the Government for the period between 1.10.2006 to 31.3.2007, where the learned Tribunal has considered it as Rs.57.60 ps. The rate does not appear to be consistent with the material provided about notification of the Government to consider the minimum wages of the skilled, unskilled and semi-skilled person. The minimum wages schedule which has been provided for perusal of the Court shows the amount of Rs.2,500/- for the unskilled person and Rs.2,600/- for the skilled person. Taking the minimum amount of Rs.2,500/- for unskilled person would be appropriate since no documentary evidence has been placed on record to prove the deceased as a skilled labourer. Further the Tribunal has erred in giving 50