ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present First Appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Surat in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.133 of 2006, by which, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.7,72,000/- with

9% interest p.a. from the date of the claim petition. Therefore, the Insurance-Company has preferred the present First Appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case are as such that, on 01.01.2006, deceased-Amarnath Harinarayan Tiwari was coming Pavadh to Surat in an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.GJ-5-XX-6527, which was driven by the Opponent No.1 and when the auto-rickshaw was descending from the hill, the auto-rickshaw being driven in rash and negligent manner turned turtle, due to which, the deceased sustained injuries on his head and other parts of his body. Therefore, the heirs of the deceased have filed the claim petition.

2.1 The Tribunal has issued notices to the opponents. The Opponent No.1 has filed his written statement vide Exh.17 by denying all the averments. The Opponent No.2-Insurance Company has filed its written statement vide Exh.26 by denying all the allegations. After perusal of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed issues at Exh.24 for its determination. Thereafter, the Tribunal recorded oral evidence at Exh.30 and the documentary evidence like copy of F.I.R. at Exh.31, copy of panchanama at Exh.32, copy of inquest report at Exh.33, copy of P.M. Report at Exh.35, copy of charge-sheet at Exh.36, copy of school leaving certificate at Exh.37. The Tribunal has thereafter hearing the arguments of rival parties decided the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.7,72,000/- with 9% interest p.a. from the date of the claim petition by holding the Opponent Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally liable.

3. Learned advocate for the Insurance Company Mr. Maulik J. Shelat has submitted that the present appeal is mainly on the ground of assessing the amount of compensation that means quantum of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. He has submitted that on the date of accident, The age of the deceased was 29 years. He has further argued that there is no proof of income available on the record. Therefore, he has submitted that the income should be calculated Rs.2000/- p.m. though the claimants have submitted that the deceased was doing a job of helper in printing mills and earning Rs.4,800/- p.m. but no iota of evidence is produced on record in support of the say of the claimants. Therefore, Rs.2,000/- income can be considered as the accident occurred in the year 2006. He has further submitted that by giving 40% prospective income as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in (2017) SCC 1270, the amount would come to Rs.2,800/- where there are six dependents. Therefore, 1/4th amount is required to be deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, Rs.700/- is required to be deducted from Rs.2,800/-. Therefore, Rs.2,100/- is multiplied by 12 months and further multiplied by 17 multiplier comes to Rs.4,28,400/- towards loss of dependency. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has not properly granted the amount under the head of loss of consortium as it was considered at the relevant point of time by relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh reported in (2013) ACJ 1403, which is now required to be awarded by considering the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram reported in 2018 SCC 1546, as there are total seven claimants so Rs.2,80,000/- by considering Rs.40,000/- for each of the claimants, is required to be awarded under the head of loss of consortium. Rs.30,000/- is required to be awarded under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Therefore,