The principle of just and fair compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act mandates a liberal approach in assessing damages for road accident victims, ensuring fairness and reasonableness in compensation calculations.

ORDER :

(J.C. DOSHI, J.)

1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant – Insurance Company being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 20.10.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Godhara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.535 of 2000. The claimants have filed cross-objections in the first appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 The brief fact of the present appeal is such that on 01.02.2000, deceased Mukeshkumar was travelling along with his friends in Jeep No.GJ-20-A-259 and when they reached near the place of accident, one Tempo No.GJ-6-W-6646 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the jeep and upon occurrence of the accident, deceased sustained fatal injuries and later on died.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Dakshesh Mehta appearing for the appellant - Insurance Company, learned advocate Mr.Henil Shah appearing for the original claimants who have filed cross- objections and learned advocate Mr.Anal Shah appearing for the respondent – Oriental Insurance Company Limited.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Dakshesh Mehta appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company mainly argued on two aspects that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in fastening liability upon Insurance Company of Jeep No.GJ-20-A-259. He submits that deceased was travelling as fare paying passenger in the jeep at the time of road accident. The policy of the jeep was private car policy and does not permit to use for hire and reward. Since the owner of the jeep has breached the terms and conditions of the policy and used the jeep for the purpose of transporting passengers, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. The second limb of submission of learned advocate Mr.Mehta is that widow of deceased entered into witness box and admitted that deceased was earning Rs.1500/- per month, yet learned Tribunal assessed the income of deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month and calculated the compensation. Therefore, he submits to rectify both error by allowing this appeal and exonerate the Insurance Company from liability to pay the compensation.

5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Henil Shah for the claimants would submit that the Insurance Company has miserably failed to prove that the deceased was travelling as fare paying passenger. Therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly fastened liability upon the Insurance Company believing that there is no breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. Secondly, he would submit that learned Tribunal has rightly taken up Rs.4,000/- monthly income as the accident took place on 01.02.2000 and considering the rate of minimum wage, learned Tribunal has taken up Rs.4000/- monthly income. He would submit that deceased was survived by six dependents, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4^th instead of 1/3rd for personal and pocket expenses. He also submits that learned Tribunal ought to have granted 40% towards loss of future prospects. He would further submit that compensation under non-pecuniary heads are not granted in accordance with law laid down in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi – 2017 (16) SCC 680. Therefore, he submits to recalculate the entire compensation grantable to the claimants.

6. Learned advocate Mr.Anal Shah for the Oriental Insurance Company Limited would submit to pass necessary orders.

7. 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 i