The court established that compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act must be just and reasonable, irrespective of the amount claimed, emphasizing the tribunal's duty to assess fair compensation based on evidence.

ORDER :

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 26/07/2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Dahod in MACP No. 194 of 2014, the appellants have preferred present appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.6,77,576/- holding all the opponents jointly and severally with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the realization.

2. The short facts of the case are that On 14-05-2014, Abrarkhan Pathan was going to market yard by walking on left side of road. At 20.30 hours, one truck bearing No.RJ-09 GA-2541 came from back-side rashly and negligently driven by its driver in wrong side and hit him from back side, wherein he sustained serious injuries and died during treatment.

2.1 The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- and the learned tribunal after considering the evidence on record awarded the compensation as recorded in paragraph 1 of this judgment.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Bhalodi, for the appellant and learned Advocate Mr.Majmudar for insurance company.

4. Learned Advocate Mr.Bhalodi for the appellant – org. claimants submitted that the tribunal has erred in taking up the income of the deceased while calculating the dependency loss as the deceased was holding driving licenec to drive LMV and MGV as per Exh.23 which authorizes him to ride the said kind of vehicles. He would submit that rate of minimum wage is require to be considered in case of skilled person and thereby to grant him 25% rise for the future prospect an thereby count the loss of dependency. He would further submit that tribunal has only granted Rs.50,000/- for loss of consortium whereas there are total four persons dependents of the deceased; including the parents and children of the deceased and therefore it is required to be enhanced. He would further submit that tribunal committed error in granting only Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate and funeral expenses which is on lower side and therefore in view of decision in case of, the compensation granted under the non-pecuniary head is required to be increased.

4.1 By making above submissions, he would submit to enhance the compensation awarded by the tribunal.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Majmudar for the insurance company submits to pass appropriate order considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and examining the records and proceedings minutely and evidence on record, it could be noticed that deceased was holding licence to drive LMV and MGV kind of vehicle as can be seen from Exh.27 and therefore he can be said to be a skilled person and as per rate of minimum wage as per the Notification it would come to Rs.6,000/- The family of the deceased had lost bread winner of the family. Human loss is always inaccessible. When guilt of a killer road accident is taken place wherein the sole bread winner of the family lost his life, the entire family will ruin and put in lurch to maintain itself if the just and fair compensation is not assessed. It would be worth to mention that looking to the work with which the deceased was involved and in absence of of evidence to have continuous source of income of the deceased 25% rise in his income is required to be granted in view of decision in case of Pranay Shethi (supra). Since the number of dependents are more the one-forth deduction towards the personal and pocket expenses is required to be granted.

7. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur And Ors. [ AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 3076 ] the Apex Court has recognized as to grant or approve