The court clarified that legal representatives under the Motor Vehicles Act include siblings and others, and emphasized the need for proper assessment of income and future prospects in compensation calculations.

JUDGMENT :

(J.C. Doshi, J.)

1. These are claimants’ appeal filed u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short “the Act”).

2. Since batch of First Appeals arises out of the common judgment and award passed for same road accident, with the consent of learned advocates for the parties, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

3. Present batch of first appeals are filed by the appellants – claimants challenging common judgment and award dated 9.12.2005 passed by the MACT, Surendranagar in MACP Nos.36/1998 to 40/1998.

4. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

4.1. On 8.6.1997 at 5:30 p.m. in the evening, the injured claimants and the deceased were travelling in Ambassador bearing registration No.GJ 3U 1144 driven by deceased Yunusbhai and when reached near Rajkot, truck No.GJ 9 T 6294 while overtaking one Bus, dashed with the Ambassador, as a result, some of the persons have received serious injuries and some have died.

4.2. Legal representative of deceased Preranaben and Chandanben have filed claim petition Nos.36 of 1998 and 38 of 1998 respectively.

4.3. Injured claimants Harshadbhai Mehta, Mansukhlal Mehta and Yogeshkumar Mehta have filed claim petition No.37 of 1008, 39 of 1998 and 40 of 1998.

4.4. In the road accident, the learned Tribunal has assessed negligency of the driver of the Ambassador car and driver of the truck to the extent of 30% and 70%. The insurance companies, who are vicariously liable to pay compensation for negligency of the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, did not question the apportionment of the negligency amongst the drivers of the vehicle. Even the driver, owner and the insurance company have not filed any appeal challenging the findings of the learned Tribunal about the road accident, involvement of the vehicle, liability of the insurance company to indemnify the vicarious liability etc. Therefore, those issues are since not under challenge, they are not touched in deciding the captioned first appeals.

5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Kirtidev Dave for the appellants – original claimants and learned advocates Mr. Nagesh Sood and Mr. Palak Thakkar for the insurance companies.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Dave mainly argued that the learned Tribunal has not considered the income aspect properly, not applied multiplier in correct and true perspective, so also, even the compensation under the conventional head are not granted properly as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680. Referring to the various documents produced by the claimants before the learned Tribunal to establish the income of the victims of the road accident, learned advocate Mr. Dave would further submit that they are not properly appreciated and considered by the learned Tribunal.

6.1. Upon such submission, learned advocate Mr. Dave requests to allow present First Appeal and enhanced the compensation.

7. On the other hand, learned advocates Mr. Nagesh Sood and Mr. Palak Thakkar would submit that the learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the income of the victims of the road accident and therefore, no interference is required. They would further submit that in MACP No.36 of 1998, the learned Tribunal has rightly believed that brother of deceased Preranaben is not considered to be dependent and only father of deceased Preranaben can be considered as applicant but not as dependent. In nutshell, they would submit that in all the claim petitions, the learned Tribunal has granted just compensation to the claimants as well as legal representative of the deceased and therefore, since, no error is committed by the learned Tribunal, this Court may not interfere with the common judgment and award.

7.1. Upon such submission, learned advocates Mr. Nagesh Sood and Mr. Palak Thakkar request to dismiss the first appeals.

8. No other and further submissions / arguments canvassed.

9. At the outset, let examine correctness and legali