ORAL ORDER

1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 26.03.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Camp at Limbdi, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.142 of 1995, by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.5,17,500/-.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 On 27-8-94 the deceased Sonalben was going with their mother, brother and their relatives Jagrutiben age 2 years and Hitesh age 3 years and Jatin age 16 years from Ahmedabad to Rajkot in Maruti Car No.GJ 3E 1127 at about 1 p.m.. That the Sonalben, the driver of the Maruticar driving the said CaraSlowly, carefully and at the left side of the road. That about 14 Km. away from Sayla near Kesharpar village signboard in the turning Mini Motor Truck No. MMK 746 came from Rajkot side with full speed, rashly & negligently and without blowing the horn and applying the break the said truck collided with the Maruti Car to his right side bumper and took the Maruti Car wrong side and caused the accident. That in the said accident, they were injured and treated in the hospital and Sonalben, Bhanuben and minor Jagrutiben died due to the serious injuries.

2.2 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.

2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal is preferred before this Court.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rituraj M. Meena for the appellant.

3.1 Learned advocate for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court towards the calculation arrived at by the tribunal, whereby, the concerned tribunal has considered the prospective income to the extent of 50%, which is as per his submission, ought to have been 40% in view of the judgments in the cases of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 as well as National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. He has further submitted that appeal is also required to be considered on the ground of dependency. Therefore, he prays that the amount which is awarded by the tribunal is on higher side and on the above counts, he prays to allow the present appeal.

4. I have considered the submissions made at the bar as well as I have perused the judgment and award passed by the tribunal as well as the material available on the record.

5. It transpires that the tribunal has rightly considered 50% prospective income instead of 40% prospective income, however, considering the age of the deceased i.e. 20 years and as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), multiplier of 18 ought to have been awarded by the tribunal, whereas, the tribunal has awarded only 15 and therefore, the amount of compensation ought to have been awarded something more than what is awarded by the tribunal, considering the judgments in the cases of Sarla Verma (supra) well as Pranay Sethi (supra). However, in absence of any cross objection or cross appeal, this Court is restraining to pass any order for enhancement and accordingly, the amount which is awarded by the Tribunal is found proper. Otherwise, the amount could have been awarded more, but no cross objection is filed. Also, considering the fact that the amount ought to have been awarded something more, the grounds urged by the learned advocate for the appellant is not required to be accepted.

5.1 It is noteworthy to mention that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which gives paramount importance to the concept of ‘just and fair’ compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the concept of ‘just compensation’ which ought to be determined on the foundation of fa