The court emphasized that compensation must be just and fair, with standard deductions for personal expenses set at 50% for bachelors unless proven otherwise.

ORDER :

1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 5.9.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajkot in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.395 of 2015.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 On 14.1.2015, deceased Dineshbhai of MACP No.398 of 2015 was driving car bearing No.GJ 3 ER 9561 towards Somnath for darshan and in which, deceased Mansukhbhai was sitting. Since deceased Dineshbhai was driving the car rashly and negligently, accident took place, in which, Mansukhbhai received serious injuries and died.

3. Learned advocate for the insurance company raised two fold contentions. Firstly, she would submit that the learned Tribunal in absence of any documentary evidence assessed the income of the deceased to Rs.7500/-, whereas, rate of minimum wage at the relevant time for unskilled labourer was much less. Secondly, she would submit that the learned Tribunal has taken departure from the settled principles for relaxation. She would further submit that the learned Tribunal has taken 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards personal and pocket expenses and deducted said amount, whereas in para 15 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (6) SCC 121, it is held that normally 50% is to be deducted towards personal and pocket expenses on the assumption that bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. She would further submit that even taking departure from settled principles of law, the claimant was required to prove that the deceased was spending more amount towards family rather than towards himself. In the present case, no such evidence is recorded and therefore, the findings of the learned Tribunal to deduct 1/3 towards personal and pocket expenses is required to be rectified by taking 50% towards personal and pocket expenses.

4. Process was served to the other side, but none remained present.

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 claimant. The determination of the quantum of compensation therefore, must be liberal and not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scale. Needless to state that money may be awarded, so that something tangible may be procured to reach something else of the like nature, which has been destroyed or lost, but money cannot renew physical frame that has been battered and shattered being a result of the road accident. Yet Tribunal to endavour to bring back victim to stage of pre-road accident as far as possible Thus, the award must be reasonable and cannot be assessed with moderation though it cannot at the same time be pity and what could be granted must be just, fair and equitable compensation.

6.1 I have considered the submissions made by the rival parties. I have perused