Determining compensation requires cogent proof of income; where such proof is absent, minimum wage benchmarks apply. Appellate courts must ensure conventional compensation heads follow mandatory ceilings and that interest rates on awarded sums are commensurate with economic reality and judicial uniformity.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, ( for short “the Act”) at the instance of the original claimants, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 29.11.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Bhavnagar in MACP No. 539 of 1995. By the said judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the original claimants under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 holding them entitled to recover sum of Rs. 5,31,700/- as compensation, to be realised from the original opponents jointly and severally whether with interest @ of 7.5% per annum and with proportionate costs from the date filing of such claim petition till its actual realisation.

2. The Tribunal has, thus, though entertained the claim petition has not awarded the entire claim of compensation of Rs. 12 lakhs as prayed for by the claimants. Hence, the present appeal seeking for enhancement of the remaining amount of compensation of Rs. 6,68,300 with interest and proportionate costs.

3. Considering the grounds raised in the appeal memo and the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant, this Court vide order dated 27.10.2015, had admitted the appeal. The record reveals that the notice of admission has been duly served upon the respondents-original opponents. Despite service of notice for respondents No. 1 and 2 they have chosen not to enter appearance or to object to the present appeal.

4. Ms. Kirti S. Pathak learned advocate has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No. 3-Insurance Company. With the able assistance of learned advocates on record, the appeal is peremptorily heard finally.

5. Learned advocate Ms. Hetaben H. Shah has joined virtually and has assailed the impugned judgment and award mainly on the ground of quantum of compensation being determined on the lower side. The core contention which has been raised by learned advocate is that the Tribunal miserably failed to fix the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- despite cogent material being brought on record. In the cross-examination, the wife of the deceased has categorically deposed that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,500/- per month by serving as Operator in an Oxizon Plant run by Paras Industries. It was submitted that income certificate has been produced on record at Exh. 34 and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/-. Merely because the author of the income certificate has not been examined by the claimant, considering the FIR there is no reason to disbelieve the case of the claimants that the deceased was earning his livelihood by serving as an Operator in the Paras Industries. Even the Insurance Company has failed to contradict the aforesaid case of the claimant in the cross-examination. She has further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also required to be revisited in light of the subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Lastly, learned advocate has urged this Court to award interest @ 15% considering the fact that the accident had taken place on 12.02.1995. The reliance was placed on the deci