The court ruled that compensation must accurately reflect the deceased's income and include adequate amounts for loss of consortium and future dependency, adhering to minimum wage standards where no proof exists.

JUDGMENT :

HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.

ADMIT. Learned advocates Mr. H.B. Champavat and Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati waive service of notice of Admission for and on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for respective parties, present appeal is taken up for final hearing.

[1.0] Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 01.08.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.27/2023, the appellants – original claimants have preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).

[2.0] It is the case of the claimants that on 19.11.2022, while the deceased Kishankumar Rabhabhai Rathod was travelling as a pillion rider on Motorcycle No.GJ-07-CN-3473 and while the driver of said motorcycle was driving the motorcycle with moderate speed on the correct side of the road and when they reached at the place of accident, the driver of Truck bearing No.HR-63-D-5943 came driving his truck in rash and negligent manner on wrong side and dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased as a result of which the accident occurred and died on the spot. Therefore, the claim petition was filed by the original claimants – legal heirs of the deceased to get compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- from the opponents. After appreciating the evidence produced on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.13,30,600/- along with cost and interest @ 7.5% p.a.

[3.0] The appeal is filed only on the ground of quantum and no further issue qua liability or negligence is raised. Learned counsel for the claimants has argued that the Tribunal has erred in considering monthly income of the deceased as Rs.8000/- on notional basis though the deceased was earning monthly Rs.10,000/- by doing masonry work. Further, the Tribunal has also erred in not awarding proper compensation under different other heads. Hence, he has prayed to allow the appeal as prayed for.

[4.0] Learned advocates appearing for the respondents have opposed the present appeal and submitted that, the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation in absence of any evidence of income and adequate compensation is awarded under the head of loss of consortium. Therefore, requested to dismiss the appeal.

[5.0] Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the appeal is filed only on the aspect of quantum and liability is not challenged. The Insurance Company has not filed any cross-objection. Hence, this appeal is required to be decided on the aspect of quantum only. Alleged incident is not in dispute. Involvement of the vehicle is also not in dispute. In order to prove the claim, the claimant No.1 has filed an Affidavit at Exh.17, FIR at Exh.19, Panchnama of scene of incident at Exh.20, Inquest Panchanama at Exh.21 and PM report at Exh.22. After appreciating the evidence produced on record, the Tribunal held the offending Truck sole negligent relying on the decisions of theBimla Devi Vs. HRTC reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819 and Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Amir Chand , reported in 2011 (11) SCC 635. Hence, so far as negligence part is concerned, this Court is of considered view that no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal, which does not call for any interference.

[6.0] Further, the age of the deceased as mentioned in P.M. Report (Exh.22) is 19 years as on the date of accident and therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 18 in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case ofSarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [ 2009 (6) SCC 121 ], with which there is no dispute.

[6.1] As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ofGovind Yadav Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. , reported in 2012(1) TAC 1 (SC), if no proof of income is produced on the rec