The court emphasized the principle of just and fair compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, requiring a holistic approach in calculating damages, including future prospects.

ORDER :

1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellants – original claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 24.3.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vyara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.193 of 2007.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 The brief fact of the present appeal is such that on 05/11/2007 at about 6:30 a.m. husband of the appellant No.1 Rakeshbhai Kaliyabhai Gamit (hereinafter referred as 'Deceased') was going towards Songadh by driving his motorcycle bearing No.GJ-19-B-2515 in moderate speed. When he reached near the Village Sonarpada at that time respondent No.1 came by driving his Truck No.MH-18-M-2341 in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased. It is submitted that due to said collision deceased sustain serious injuries and died during the treatment. Therefore the appellants have prayed the compensation for unnatural and ultimet death against the present respondent by way of filing a petition under M.V. Act before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Tapi at Vyara and prayed Rs.15,00,000/- and held these respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation.

3. Learned advocate for the appellants - claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not properly calculating the amount of compensation. He has submitted that amount of award is on lower side as the Tribunal has not properly considered the various aspects; like prospective income of the deceased, negligence, liability and family circumstances, etc. He would further submit that the deceased was 30 years and five months old at the time of road accident, and therefore, considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Shashikala and others Vs. Gangalakshmamma and another, 2015 ACJ 1239, the multiplier should be 17 instead of 16.

3.1 He has submitted that the compensation is required to be enhanced by modifying the award impugned accordingly and this appeal may be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned advocate for respondent – Insurance Company has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. The Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased, the age of the deceased, the dependency and future aspect of income. He has submitted that under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses, the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation. He has submitted that the amount under the head of loss of consortium is just and proper. He has submitted that this appeal may be dismissed and no interference be made by this Court.

5. Apt to note that the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of Legislation. The concept of just and fair compensation is integral and seminal to the MV Act. The compensation to be awarded under the principle of just and fair compensation to the injured of the road accident or the legal representative/s of the deceased person is based on the principle of fairness, reasonableness and equability. Anguish of the heart or for mental turbulence being consequential result of the road accident cannot be actually compensated, but the quint essentiality lies in adopting holistic and pragmatic view to the computation of the compensation for the loss sustained, which is to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Although exact or perfect arithmetical calculation of compensation for reparation of the loss arrived from the road accident is almost impossible. The Tribunal is bestowed with duty to make an endevour to award just compensation regardless of the amount claimed by the claimants. The determination of the quantum of compe