IMPORTANT POINT
The Court considered the claimant's income, future loss of income, pain, shock and suffering, special diet and transportation, actual loss of income, and medical expenses in determining the compensation amount.

JUDGMENT :

1. Since all the learned Advocates for the respondents are on record, considering the ground raised before this Court and with the consent of learned Advocates on record, this Court is inclined to decide this First Appeal at the admission stage. Hence, ADMIT.

2. By way of this Appeal, the Appellant has challenged the judgment and award dated 13.01.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad in M.A.C.P. No.799 of 2016 making a prayer for enhancement of the compensation amount.

3. The facts giving rise to the present Appeal can be put succinctly as under :-

The accident occurred on 01.05.2016 at about 10.30 am near Village Dariyapur on Rajpipla Road for which a First Information Report came to be registered as I-C.R. No.13 of 2016 with Shinor Police Station. The Maruti Car bearing Registration No.GJ-7-AR-4533 was being driven by the claimant of M.A.C.P. No.786 of 2016 – Jalpeshkumar Bhanuprasad Shah. The other claimants who became the victim were the occupiers in the Maruti Car. The driver of the Maruti Car was driving his car on the correct side of the road and in a moderate speed and when they were passing through the place of incident, the driver of the Truck bearing Registration No.AP-16-TE-2468 drove the Truck in a rash and negligent manner, in excessive speed, endangering human life and dashed with the above Maruti Car. The driver of the Maruti Car and his wife sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to death. The other occupants sustained various injuries.

4. Learned Advocate for the appellants-claimant Ms. Shreya M. Soni submitted that the income has not been considered in its right perspective and no rise in prospective income has been granted to the claimant and hence, that has affected the compensation amount. It is further submitted that the amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering is not proper and does not correspond to the actual suffering that the claimant had undergone. Hence, it is submitted that appropriate compensation be granted to the claimants under all the heads.

5. Countering the above arguments, learned Advocates appearing for both the respondent Insurance Companies, Mr. Maulik J. Shelat and Mr. Rathin P. Raval submitted that the claimant had failed to give any evidence with regard to her earning and no cogent evidence was produced to substantiate the fact of her work. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has granted appropriate amount under all the heads including the medical expenses. Thus, it is submitted that no indulgence would be necessary of this Court as the total compensation granted is just and proper.

6. Having heard learned Advocates for the respective parties, perused the records of the case, it comes on record that the present appellant-claimant has filed her examination-in-chief in the form of Affidavit at Exhibit 33. As per her deposition, she has stated that she was doing sewing work and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal has considered the appellant’s income as Rs.4,000/- per month. Taking into account the date of accident and the fact that the claimant was earning through sewing work though no documentary evidence was produced, initially notice could be taken of the fact that in such kind of work, no accounting would be done and it would not provide an earning job, hence, there were no specific documents. Considering the oral evidence of the claimant, her income is considered as Rs.5,000/- per month.

7. At the time of the accident, the claimant was aged 53 years, and hence the multiplier applicable would be 11. The learned Tribunal has considered 42% disability of the body as a whole and as was assessed by the Doctor. The learned Tribunal has believed the medical expert and this Court, also does not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of Dr. Yogeshbhai Thakorlal Parikh, who had corroborated the injuries sustained by the claimant and had given his opinion with regard to the disability of th