IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 638 of 2015 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

RAMUBEN W/O DEVABHAI MEPABHAI BHUVA & ORS.

Versus VINODBHAI MANJIBHAI GOLAKIYA & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR R.K.MANSURI(3205) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3 MS KARUNA V RAHEVAR(3818) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE Date : 16/03/2026

JUDGMENT

Heard Mr. R.K. Mansuri, learned advocate for the appellants-

original claimants and Ms. Karuna V. Rahevar, learned advocate for the respondent no.2-The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as “the Insurance Company”). The notice of admission of appeal, is reported to have been duly served upon respondent no.1- the owner of the offending vehicle involved in the accident; however, has chosen not to contest the present appeal by entering his appearance.

[2.] With the able assistance of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the present appeal is taken up for final hearing.

[3.] The present appeal is filed at the instance of the original claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1988”), being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 18.12.2014 (hereinafter to be referred as “the impugned judgment and award”) passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Amreli in M.A.C.P. No.72 of 2007.

[3.1] By the said impugned judgment and award, though the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the original claimants under Section 166 of the Act of 1988, holding them entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 2,19,680/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its actual realization, with proportionate costs and interest from the original opponent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the owner and the Insurance Company of the vehicle involved, jointly and severally; however, has refused to grant their prayer of total amount of compensation of Rs. 4 Lakhs with interest. Hence, the present appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation.

[4.] Considering the grounds raised in the appeal and the submissions made, this Court, vide order dated 17.06.2015, had admitted the appeal. The record and the proceedings have been called for.

[5.] Mr. R.K. Mansuri, learned advocate for the appellants- original claimants, has forcefully submitted that the Tribunal committed gross error in answering the issue of quantum of compensation by determining the amount of compensation on the lower side. It is submitted that the deceased was earning by attending the agricultural work as well as cattle grazing and selling of milk. In the claim petition preferred by the original claimants as well as the deposition of original claimant no.2, it was specifically pleaded that the deceased was earning an income of Rs. 3,000/- per month; however, the Tribunal has considered the income of Rs. 2,400/- per month, by taking into consideration the minimum wages prevailing at the time of the accident.

[5.1] It is further submitted that the deceased was aged 50 years at the time of the accident and, being self-employed, the Tribunal ought to have considered the future rise in income, while determining the future loss of income. While inviting my attention to the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal, the learned advocate has pointed out that the aforesaid aspect has been totally lost sight of by the Tribunal. As regards the factor of the multiplier of 13 and 1/3^rd deduction being considered towards personal expenses of the deceased is concerned, the learned advocate has fairly submitted that the same has