Compensation for dependents can be reassessed based on minimum wages in absence of income proof, recognizing multiple claimants in vehicle accident cases.

JUDGMENT :

HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 21.09.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Khambhat at Anand, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.326/2020 (Old Case No.615/2017), the appellant-original claimant preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).

2. Heard Mr. Hiren Modi, learned Advocate for the appellant-original Claimant and Mr. Tanmay B. Karia, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Though served, none appears for other respondents.

3. It is the case of the claimant that on 01.10.2017, deceased Prafulben and his wife Ushaben were travelling in car bearing No.MH-47-N-0277 on correct side of the road and when they reached near Kabara village, Vataman Tarapur road, at that time one Truck bearing No.GJ 12 Y 7828 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the car from behind. As a result, the deceased got serious injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the claim petition was filed by the legal heir of the deceased to get compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- from the opponents. After appreciating the evidence produced on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.12,33,810/- along with cost and interest @ 9 % p.a.

4. Learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed error while attributing 20 % share to respondent No.4 who is grandmother of the deceased, whereas, the present appellant is mother of the deceased. The appellant was having only son and daughter in law, who are died in the accident, whereas, the respondent No.4 grand-mother was having three sons alive and she is residing with them. Further, the Tribunal has erred in assessing income of the deceased at Rs.6500/- p.m. He has submitted that Tribunal has committed error in making apportionment of 20 % to grandmother – respondent No.4. Further, the Tribunal has also erred in not properly awarding future prospective income and other conventional heads are required to be enhanced. Hence, he has prayed to allow the appeal as prayed for.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3- Insurance Company has opposed the present appeal and submitted that, the Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding compensation. Respondent No.4 was grand-mother of the appellant and since claimant No.1 expired, application was filed below Exh:21 and respondent No.4 was joined as party being deceased Praful was grand-son. They were residing with her and she was dependent upon the income of both the deceased. Hence, the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence and has not committed any error.

6. 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 not in dispute. Involvement of the vehicle is also not in dispute. In order to prove the claim, the claimant has filed an Affidavit in form of Examination in Chief at Exh:33, FIR at Exh:39, Panchnama of scene of incident at Exh:40, Inquest Panchanama at Exh:41 and PM report at Exh:46. During pendency of claim petition, claimant No.1 expired and due to this reason, respondent No.4 was joined vide Exh:21 and claim