Compensation must reflect just and fair standards based on income potential and dependency as per Motor Vehicles Act provisions.

1. The present first appeal, under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, is preferred by the appellants / original claimants - legal heirs of the deceased, Sanjaybhai Madhabhai Parmar, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 4.4.2019 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Gandhinagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 282 of 2012, by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.4,58,400 with 9 per cent per annum interest to the claimants, holding opponent Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., owner and insurance company of Eicher truck bearing registration No. GJ - 27 - T - 8111 liable, jointly and severally.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under.
2.1 That on 12.5.2012 at about 7.30 p.m., when deceased, Sanjaybhai Madhabhai Parmar, was going on his motor cycle bearing registration No. GJ - 1 - LS - 9866 and was passing near Surya Hotel, Ranasan Patiya, at that time, the driver of Eicher truck bearing registration No. GJ - 27 - T - 8111 has driven the said Eicher truck in rash and negligent manner, endangering human lives, without following traffic rules and dashed with the motor cycle of the deceased. Due to that, the deceased sustained serious injuries on head and other parts of the body. Ultimately, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased - parents have filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000 with costs and 18 per cent interest for unnatural and untimely death against the present respondents before the Tribunal.
2.2 Notices were served to the opponents. Opponent No. 1 has chosen not to appear and contest the claim petition before the Tribunal. Whereas opponent No. 2 has appeared and filed its written statement / objections at Exhs. 13 and 29 by disputing all the averments made by the claimants in the claim petition.
2.3 The Tribunal has framed the issues at Exh. 35. 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 claimants for enhancement.

3. 1 Learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi for the appellants / claimants 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 business of transportation and was earning Rs.1,82,860 as per the income tax return filed before the government. He has fairly submitted that the income tax return is filed on 18.6.2012 and the accident took place on 12.5.2012. He has submitted that the deceased was the owner of one truck bearing registration No. GJ - 1 - AT - 9866, which he has purchased on 13.9.2006 and was paying installments, the material for this is produced on record before the learned Tribunal by the claimants. He has fairly submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the IT return as it was filed after the accident and considered Rs.3,000 as monthly income of the deceased and awarded compensation, which is apparent error on the face of the record, which is required to be interfered with by this court. He has submitted that considering Rs.1,82,860 per annum income of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation to the