Contributory negligence requires cogent evidence from site documents, failing which it cannot be assumed. Compensation must follow settled guidelines regarding income, future prospects, and personal expense deductions, ensuring comprehensive coverage under conventional heads and determining insurer liability based on valid vehicle licensure.

JUDGMENT :

NISHA M. THAKORE, J.

1. Heard Mr. Vijal P. Desai, learned advocate for the appellants-original claimants, learned advocate Ms. Masumi Nanavati has appeared on behalf of Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati learned advocate on record for the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company and learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi has appeared on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, involved in the accident.

The appellants No. 3 and 6 has been deleted from the array of parties. It is reported that the mother of the deceased has expired, pending the proceedings. With the able assistance of learned advocate on record the appeal is peremptorily heard finally.

2. 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 with the judgment and award dated 03.07.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchmahal at Godhra in MACP No. 768 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 M.V. Act, 1988, holding them entitled to seek recovery of sum of Rs. 6,00,960/- from the opponents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally towards compensation with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation, however, has not entertained the entire claim of compensation of Rs. 9,75,000/-. Hence, the present appeal praying for enhancement of the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,74,049/- with interest and costs.

3. Before considering the merits of the appeal, appropriate would be to take note of the brief facts of the case pleaded before the Claim Tribunal. The claimants have pleaded that on 17.05.2010, the deceased Parvatsinh Bariya was riding on motorcycle bearing registration GJ-6BC 7188. The deceased was driving the said motor cycle along with one pillion rider Ashokbhai Bariya and was going towards village Sureli. While he was passing near Borada Primary School, the driver of the tractor bearing registration No. GJ-17-D-9186 with trailor bearing registration No. GJ-17-Y-4663, came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and driving with excessive speed, dashed with the motorcycle. As a result the deceased was thrown out off the road and had sustained severe injuries. The deceased unfortunately succumbed to the fatal injuries.

4. The cause of action arose for the claimants, who are heirs and legal representatives of the deceased, to seek compensation from the original opponents viz the driver, owner and the insurance company of the offending vehicle, tractor and trailor being joined as opponents No. 1 to 3 respectively. Before the Claims Tribunal, it was pleaded by the claimants that the deceased was aged 34 years and was hale and hearty and was earning income of Rs. 4,500/- per month by attending Centering work and doing agricultural activities. The claimants have, therefore, prayed for total amount of compensation of Rs. 9,75,000/- with interest and proportionate costs from the original opponents. The said claim petition was presented before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchmahal at Godhara on 02.08.2010 which was registered as MACP No. 768 of 2010.

Before the Claim Tribunals, the opponents were duly served with the summons. The opponents No.1 and 2 have jointly entered appearance through their lawyer and had submitted their written statement at Exh. 13. The said opponents have objected to the occurrence of accident and have also attributed negligence towards the deceased. However, he has admitted to the fact that the deceased had succumbed to the fatal injuries caused due to the motor vehicle accident of his vehicle. The said opponents have also admitted about the registration of the police complaint being FIR bearing registration No. ICR 75 of 2010 against the driver of the tractor. The