JUDGMENT

1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 31.07.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Mahesana in MACP No.398/2004, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.83,000/- as a compensation along with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.

2. The succinct facts leading to file the captioned appeal are that on 23.04.2004, when the deceased-Thakor Tinuji Pratapji was walking on Mahesana Panchot Road as a pedestrian, in the meantime, the driver of a tractor bearing registration no.GJ-8-C-9154 came by driving his tractor in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased-Thakor Tinuji Pratapji. Due to the impact of the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. It is also the case of the claimants/appellants that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 18 years and was gainfully engaged in labour work and thereby, he was earning a sum of Rs.1,800/- per month. Therefore, the claim petition for seeking the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- came to be filed.

3. On being served, the respondent no.2/insurance company filed its written statement at Exh.32, thereby denying all the averments made in the claim petition and prayed for rejection of the claim petition.

4. Having considered the pleadings, evidence led by the respective parties and the submissions canvassed by the respective parties, the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.83,000/- as a compensation along with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the original claimants/appellants herein challenged the impugned judgment and award on the ground of quantum.

6. Heard learned counsels for the parties.

7. Mr. Viral J. Dave, learned counsel appearing on behalf of original claimants/appellants herein vehemently submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 18 years and he was engaged as a laborer. He further submitted that the income of the deceased could not be proved by leading the cogent evidence on record. In absence of any cogent evidence of income, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the minimum wages prevalent at the time of accident; however, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at very lower side. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal had applied the multiplier of 16 instead of 18. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not considered the future prospective income of the deceased. He submitted that 40% of the income ought to have been added on account of future prospects of the deceased. He further submitted that the deceased was survived by both the parents; however, the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under the heads of loss of estate and loss of consortium. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of Rs.3,000/- under the head of funeral expenses. Therefore, he prayed for enhancement of compensation.

8. Per contra, Mr. Sunil B. Parikh, learned counsel for respondent no.2/insurance company vehemently submitted that the income of the deceased was not proved by leading the cogent evidence on record, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the annual income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/-. He further submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased was bachelor, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/2 of the income on account of personal expenses of the deceased; however, the learned Tribunal had deducted 1/3 of the income on account of personal expenses of the deceased. He further submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award, therefore, the captioned appe