IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the standardization of addition to income for future prospects and the need for uniformity and consistency in determining compensation in motor accident cases.

JUDGMENT :

(Nisha M. Thakore, J.)

1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and award dated 29.04.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in MACP No.94 of 2011. The appellants are the original claimants, who have approached this Court seeking enhancement of the award amount as against the aforesaid impugned award by which the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the appellants – original claimants for the sum of Rs.9,61,640/- as against the claim put forward for a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs.

2. In nutshell, the case contended by the original claimants before the Tribunal is:

2.1 On 30.09.2010, at around 10:30 p.m. the husband of the appellant No.1 – Ramsinh Bhaijibhai Rathod (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) was moving back to his home on motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ-17P-2478 from Airport to Nobalnagar. On way, when the deceased had arrived near Kotarpur turning the respondent No.1 – driver of the vehicle Chota Hathi bearing registration No.GJ-1-BX-6494 came from behind in rash, negligent and excessive speed and dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased. In the accident, the deceased sustained serious injuries. Though he was shifted to the hospital, on the next day, he succumbed to the injuries. The FIR was registered late i.e. after 2 days against the original opponent No. 1.

2.2 At the time of accident, the deceased was serving as a Wireman in the Airport and was also simultaneously engaged in the miscellaneous work of pipe fittings and was thereby earning total income of Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to sudden death of the deceased, the original claimant No.1 has lost her husband, the original claimant Nos.2 and 3 have lost their father, whereas the claimant No.4, who was father of the deceased, has lost his son. The claimants have preferred the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal against the opponent No.1, who was driving the offending vehicle. The opponent No.2 is owner of the said vehicle and was vicariously liable for the wrong act of the opponent No.1 and the opponent No.3, was the Insurance Co. of the offending vehicle. The original claimants have preferred claim petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking an amount of Rs.50 Lakhs as compensation along with interest and cost from the said opponents.

2.3 The Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence brought on record, though being convinced about the negligence of the opponent No.1 driver and consequential liability of the opponent Nos. 2 and 3, has partly allowed the claim petition, holding the opponents jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.9,61,640/- as compensation with interest thereof at the rate of 9% p.a. till the date of realization with proportionate cost. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the original claimants praying for enhancement of the award amount.

3. We have heard Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate on record for the appellants – original claimants and Mr. Rathin Raval, learned advocate for the respondent No.3 – Insurance Co. Though notice has been duly served upon the respondent Nos.1 and 2, they have not contested the present appeal.

4. In absence of any challenge to the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal at the instance of the respondents – original opponents, the only question, which arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the Tribunal committed any error in determining the compensation as awarded to the original claimants, in the facts of the case.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Modi for the appellants has restricted his submissions praying for enhancement of compensation mainly under four heads. Heavy reliance is placed on guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017)16 SCC 680. According to the learned advocate, the award passed