IMPORTANT POINT
Concept of just and fair compensation is integral and seminal to MV Act – Tribunal is bestowed with duty to make endeavour to award just compensation regardless of amount claimed by claimant.

JUDGMENT

The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellants – original claimants, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 16.03.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surendranagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.57 of 2000.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 On ill fated day of 22.12.1999, deceased Rameshchandra and one Manojbhai were going on motorbike to Village Mahudi for darshan and when they reached near place of accident, luxury bus came in rash and negligent manner from opposite side and dashed with motorbike, as a result, deceased Rameshchandra having received fatal injuries died on the spot.

2.2 FIR of incident was registered before the concerned Police Station.

2.3. The claimant filed claim petition under section 166 of MV Act being MACP No.57 of 2000 claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest jointly and severally from the opponents.

2.4. After appreciating evidence on record, learned Tribunal was pleased to pass judgment and award in tune of Rs.6,98,000/- with 9% interest from the date of claim petition.

2.5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and award dated 16.03.2010, the legal heirs of deceased has filed present appeal.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Solanki for the appellant - claimants made two fold submissions. Firstly, he submits that learned Tribunal in absence of evidence, erroneously, contributed 15% negligence to deceased - Rameshchandra in causing road accident. Taking this Court through facts of the case, he would submit that width of road was 23 feet 8 feet. Deceased at the relevant time was riding motorbike. Luxury bus dashed with motorbike, resulting into death of Rameshchandra. He would submit that police record demonstrate that luxury bus driver fled from the spot and persons who were on motorbike died. It is submitted that all this indicates that driver of luxury bus was fully negligent in causing road accident, but learned Tribunal for no reason attributed 15% negligence to the deceased - Rameshchandra, who was motorcycle driver. It is also submitted that luxury bus driver who was served with process did not enter to contest the proceedings or to contest claim petition by filing written statement nor has entered into witness box to discharge burden upon him, yet learned Tribunal contributed 15% negligence to the deceased. Such finding is erroneous on the face and required to be quashed and set aside.

3.1. Secondly, it is submitted by learned advocate for the appellant / claimants that learned Tribunal though believed that deceased was earning Rs.7405/- demonstrated from salary certificate, it has taken Rs.4500/- to compensate monthly loss of dependency and no compensation for loss of future prospects has been granted. It is also argued that learned Tribunal erred in granting compensation under loss of estate and loss of consortium and also for funeral expense. They are on lower side. It is submitted that such compensation is not in congruence with judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v/s. Pranay Sethi [2017 (16) SCC 680], later on explained in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. [2018 (18) SCC 130] and reiterated in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur reported in [(2021) 11 SCC 780].

3.2. Mainly, on above submissions, it is submitted to allow the appeal and quash and set aside finding of learned Tribunal with regard to 15% contributory negligent to the deceased and to enhance compensation by adopting income of Rs.5000/- per month and also to grant loss of future prospects and to rationalize compensation under non pecuniary heads.

4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati for the Insurance Company to sustain impugned judgment supports reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal and submits that accident took place in head