Contributory negligence cannot be fixed based on conjecture regarding the number of passengers without specific evidence of causality. Furthermore, compensation for minors suffering permanent disability must reflect potential future earning capacity based on established skilled wage standards rather than narrow notional estimates.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Mr. Vishal Mehta learned advocate on record for the appellant-original claimant, Mr. R.G. Dwivedi learned advocate has joined the court proceedings through virtual mode and has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3- Insurance Company. The record indicates that the rule of admission of appeal has been served upon respondents No. 1,2 and 4, however, no appearance has been entered. With the able assistance of learned advocates on record, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.

The present Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 , at the instance of the original claimants, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 8.10.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Panchmahal at Godhra in MACP No. 705 of 2010. By the said judgment and award, though 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. 2,52,000/- towards compensation from the original opponents No. 1 to 3 and 4, jointly and severally in the proportion of 70% :30%, with proportionate costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e 24.06.2010 till its actual realization, however, has not entertained the entire claim of compensation for Rs. 5 lakhs with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Hence, the present appeal praying for enhancement of the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,48,000/-.

Learned advocate for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and award mainly on the issue of negligence and on the issue of quantum of compensation.

It was submitted that though the claimant is a minor represented through the natural guardian in the claim proceedings and was a pillion rider on the vehicle involved in the accident and therefore the drivers of the respective vehicles being found negligent towards the occurrence of the accident, for him,s it would be a case of composite negligence. However, considering the challenge made by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased driver of the motorcycle involved in the accident, he has raised the issue of negligence as well. The attention of this Court was invited to the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal, while examining the issue of negligence. Learned advocate had submitted that the Tribunal has mainly taken into consideration, the FIR produced on record at Exh. 16 which has been lodged by the father of the claimant Mulabhai Batubhai Patel against the driver of the tempo. Referring to the contents of the FIR, learned advocate had pointed out that the Tribunal has rightly noted that the negligence is solely hinted against the driver of the tempo. The learned advocate had also referred to the panchanama of the place of accident which is produced on record at Exh. 17. Inviting my attention to the damages sustained by the vehicles as against the occurrence of incident narrated by the complainant in the FIR, learned advocate has submitted that ultimately at the end of the investigation the charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the tempo which is produced on record at Exh. 18. With such documentary evidence on record, if is appreciated in light of the deposition of the father of the claimant, who has entered the witness box and his deposition has been recorded at Exh. 24, the Tribunal has rightly drawn adverse inference against the driver of the tempo, in absence of any rebuttal of such allegations and in absence of the driver having entered the witness box. Despite the aforesaid conclusion being drawn by the Tribunal against the driver of the tempo, without assigning any further reasons, the Tribunal has held the driver of the motorcycle on which the claimant was a pillion rider holding him negligent to the extent of 30% towards occurrence of accident. The only fact which has perhaps weighed with the Tribunal is the fact that three pe