The court clarified the distinction between composite and contributory negligence, enhancing compensation for the claimants based on erroneous Tribunal findings.

ORDER :

1. Since both the First Appeals filed u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short “the Act”) arise out of selfsame accident having judgment and award in two different MACP being MACP Nos. 568 of 2012 and 569 of 2012 filed u/s 166 of the Act and partly-allowing both the petitions by judgment and award dated 30.08.2017 passed by the learned MACT (Aux), Sabarkantha, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under :

2.1 The brief fact of the present appeal is such that on 29.06.2012, deceased minor Brijkumar Patel and his mother Sonalben Patel were travelling in Innova Car No.GJ-1-HK-9888 towards Airport and when they reached near the place of accident, one Tanker No.RJ-14-G-7196 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the Innova car and upon occurrence of the accident, both deceased persons sustained fatal injuries and later on died.

3. Learned advocate for the appellants - claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not properly calculating the amount of compensation. The appeals are filed on two counts. Firstly, learned Tribunal in case of composite negligence erred in assessing contributory negligence of the occupants of Innova car. Secondly, 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.

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 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