The case establishes the principle of just compensation in wrongful death claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing fair assessment based on the loss of income and family dependency.

ORAL ORDER

1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , is preferred by the appellant/s – original claimant/s – legal heirs of the deceased – Mansukhbhai Dayabhai, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 01.12.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Gondal, District : Rajkot in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.360 of 2002, by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,94,000/- with 9% per annum interest to the claimant/s, holding the Opponents liable, jointly and severally.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 That on 21.05.2002, the deceased – Mansukhbhai Dayabhai was travelling as pillion rider on motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ-3-PP-589 which was driven by deceased Dineshbhai Dhanjibhai Sangani and at about 6:00 a.m., when they reached on Gondal-Rajkot National Highway Road, near Ashapura Farm, at that time, the driver of Chhakdo Rickshaw bearing registration No.GJ-3-V-4095 came with his Chhakdo driving in rash and negligent manner, will full speed, without observing traffic rules, so as to endanger to the human life and ultimately by coming on the wrong side, dashed with the motorcycle in which the deceased was travelling as pillion rider and hence, the accident has happened. Due the said accident, the deceased had sustained bodily and other grievous injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, initially, the legal heirs of the deceased i.e. widow, 2 children and parents have filed claim petition, but later on parents are deleted, seeking compensation of Rs.20 lakhs with cost and interest for unnatural and untimely death against the present respondents before the Tribunal.

2.2 Notices were served to the opponents. There are total four opponents. Opponents No.1, 2 and 3 have not filed their written statement against the claim petition. Opponent No.4 – insurance company of has appeared and filed its written statement / objections at Exh.12 by disputing all the averments made by the claimant in the claim petition.

2.3 The Tribunal has framed the issues at Exh.40. The oral as well as documentary evidence were led by the rival parties before the Tribunal. After considering the documentary as well as oral evidence and submissions made at the bar, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation as noted above.

2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant/s for enhancement.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Tushar Sheth for the appellant/s - claimant/s has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not properly calculating the amount of compensation. He has submitted that amount of award is on lower side as the Tribunal has not properly considered the various aspects; like prospective income of the deceased, negligence, liability and family circumstances, etc. He has submitted that the deceased was aged about only 30 years at the time of accident and was doing agriculture work. He has submitted that at the relevant point of time, the income of the deceased was Rs.3,000/- per month. He has fairly submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the prospective income. He has submitted that looking to the dependents, the deduction for personal expenses would be ¼ and multiplier should be 17 looking to the age of the deceased. Therefore, considering the loss of dependency, it would be calculated as Rs.3,000/- per month income which comes to Rs.36,000/- yearly income plus Rs.14,400/- as 40% prospective income minus Rs.12,600/- as personal expenses (1/4) multiplied by 12 months and multiplied by 17 multiplier