The court affirmed that just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must reflect the actual losses suffered by claimants, considering income, expectations, and the guidelines established in prior apex court rulings.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

1. The present First Appeal under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 is preferred by the Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 10-11-2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (3^rd Aux), Bhuj-Kachchh in M.A.C.P. No.413 of 2011.

2. The present Appeal and other cognate appeals arising from one accident with took place on 23.06.2011, wherein the deceased and others were traveling in a Bolero Jeep on a highway in Taluka: Abdasa, District: Kutch and at spot of accident and on coming truck collided with the Bolero Jeep, which led to several persons being injured and three persons having died of which one of the deceased being the relative of the claimant had filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bhuj, which ultimately came to be disposed of by a common impugned judgment and award.

3. The Insurance Company has filed various appeals being aggrieved by the award on various grounds and the same have been dealt with independently by the Court in different orders.

4. Insofar as the present appeal is concerned, the same has been challenged on the ground of quantum as according to the Insurance Company, the compensation awarded is exorbitantly high.

5. It is the case of the Insurance Company that the claimants were unable to establish the income proof as the salary of the deceased was not established on basis of any cogent evidence and in absence of any proof of income tax being paid a notional income of Rs.3,000/- should have been considered as the monthly income.

6. Learned advocate for the appellant has thereafter argued that the heads under which the compensation is granted by the Tribunal is not in conformity with the decision of the Apex Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 and therefore submitted that under the various heads of last rites and loss of estate, higher compensation is awarded wherein grant of compensation under the head of loss of expectation of life was unwarranted.

7. As against this, learned Advocate for the respondent-claimants has submitted that though the compensation granted under the heads of last rites and loss of estate as well as loss of expectation of life, be on the higher side, however, considering the evidence on record with regard to the age and income, then also necessary formula as applicable under the pronouncement of the Apex Court decision, then the prospective income is required to be taken into consideration and therefore, just compensation may be awarded.

8. In rejoinder, learned Advocate for the Insurance Company has submitted that as the claimants have not filed the Appeal against the judgment and award, nor have they filed any cross objection and therefore, the claimants cannot claim recalculation of the compensation by adding a head under which the compensation is sought to be enhanced.

9. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused the documents on record, the Court may at the outset refer to various pronouncements of the Apex Court, concept of just compensation as contemplated under Section-168 of the Act, where a benevolent interpretation has been given to the word just compensation to compensate the relatives of the deceased, who have suffered an irreparable loss in terms of financial, social and moral support.

10. As per the impugned judgment and award, the compensation granted by the Tribunal under various heads in a tabular form is as under:

11. In a judgment of Apex Court in case of Surekha and others v/s. Santosh and others reported in 2020 ACJ 2156, the Apex Court observed that the High Court had declined to grant the enhancement though an enhanced amount of just compensation was arrived at because the appellant side failed to file a cro