The insurance company is liable to pay compensation first, regardless of the claimant's status as a fare-paying passenger, ensuring victims receive timely justice.

JUDGMENT :

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 19.10.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Modasa in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.110 of 2005.

2. That on 11.11.2004, the appellant was traveling in the Jeep bearing No.GJ-18-AA-5843 along with his goods. That the appellant was going from Village- Shinavad to Modasa. That while the jeep reached at village- Sijli, the driver of the jeep applied breaks and as a result, the jeep turned down. The appellant therefore received fracture injuries on right leg, left hand shoulder, backside, etc. The accident occurred due to loosing the balance over the steering of vehicle by the driver. Thus, due to rash and negligent manner, the accident occurred and the appellant sustained various injuries, as stated hereinabove. The complaint regarding the accident was lodged against the driver vide C.R.No.Ι -112/2004 with Modasa Rural Police Station.

3. Learned advocate for the appellant would submit that the learned Tribunal has taken up the income of the claimant to Rs.1500/- per month, par below the rate of minimum wage at the relevant point of time. She would further submit that even though the claimant has not produced any documentary evidence on record to prove his income, however, taking the aspect that the road accident took place in November 2004, at least rate of minimum wage for skilled worker should be taken up by the learned Tribunal as a base for calculating the loss of dependency.She would further submit that the learned Tribunal did not grant compensation for loss of future prospect as per judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680. She would further submit that the age of the claimant is 47 years as per the pleadings in the claim petition not controverted by other side. She would further submit that the learned Tribunal has granted compensation under the head of medical bills to the extent of Rs.10,000/-, whereas, the medical bills of Rs.1,82,171/- has been produced on record. She would further submit that the claimant was undergone multiple surgeries to cure his injuries, but the learned Tribunal granted Rs.10,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, which is on lower side. Lastly, she would further submit that the learned Tribunal erred in exonerating the insurance company on the ground that the claimant was travelling as fare paying passenger in a private car, which breaches the terms and conditions of the policy. She referred to the judgment of this Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Shardaben Wd/o Hasmukhbhai rendered in First Appeal No.275 of 2012 and submit to pass order for pay and recover in case if it is believed that the claimant was travelling as fare paying passenger in the errant vehicle jeep.

4. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms. Rahevar would submit that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in exonerating the insurance company and therefore, she submits to dismiss the appeal.

5. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and perusing the evidence on record, what could be noticed that the learned Tribunal in absence of any evidence on record, has taken up the income of the claimant to Rs.1500/- for road accident which took place in November 2004. At the time of road accident, as per notification of rate of minimum wage, rate of minimum wage of skilled worker was Rs.2300/-. The learned Tribunal, for no reason has taken up meager amount of Rs.1500/- as income of the claimant to determine the loss of future prospect. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, Rs.2500/- is taken as income of the claimant. The claimant was 48 years old at the time of road accident and said fact has not been controverted by the other side. Therefore, in view of judgment of Pranay Sethi (su