The court emphasized the principle of just and fair compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, ensuring realistic calculations reflecting the loss sustained by the claimants.

ORDER :

J. C. Doshi, J.

1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , is preferred by the appellant – Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 23.01.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchmahals in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.223 of 2013. The claimants have filed cross- objections in the present appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 The brief fact of the present appeal is such that on 01.02.2013, the deceased Bharatbhai was driving his motorcycle No.GJ-23-S-6541 and when he reached near the place of accident, one ST Bus bearing No.GJ-18-Y-5595 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the motorcycle and upon occurrence of the accident, deceased sustained fatal injuries and later on died.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Munshaw appearing for the appellant – GSRTC. Advocate notice was issued to the claimants and despite it was served, none remained present for the claimants. In such circumstances, the Court requested learned advocate Mr.Amit N. Patel to appear for the claimants in cross- objections in the capacity of Amicus Curiae.

3.1 Learned advocate for the appellant - GSRTC submits that in absence of any documentary evidence learned Tribunal taken up Rs.3500/- as monthly income of the deceased to calculate loss of dependency and loss of future prospects. He submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in not properly calculating the amount of compensation. Mainly upon above submissions, he would submit to recompute the compensation by taking Rs.2,000/- as monthly income of the deceased.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Amit Patel would argue that before learned Tribunal claimants have produced bonafide certificate at mark 18/2 which demonstrates that deceased has attended new efficiency first look clinic conducted by Microsoft in 2009 and he was having computer knowledge. He would further submit that deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month but the learned Tribunal committed serious error in taking Rs.3,500/- per month as the rate of minimum wage was higher than Rs.5000/- per month for skilled worker at the time of road accident. The deceased was survived by widow, minor children and parents but learned Tribunal granted Rs.15,000/- towards consortium which is required to be rationalized. Therefore, he submits to dismiss the appeal filed by GSRTC and to allow the cross-objections.

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 de