JUDGMENT :

NISHA M. THAKORE, J.

[1.] The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1988”) at the instance of the original claimant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 04.05.2015 (hereinafter to be referred as “impugned judgment and award”) passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Dhrangadhra in M.A.C.P. No.3 of 2013.

[1.1] By the said impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the original claimant under Section 166 of the Act of 1988, holding him entitled to recover sum of Rs.6,21,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its actual realization, with proportionate costs. The original opponent nos. 2 and 3 are held jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation to the extent of their liability of 80%, whereas opponent nos. 4 and 5 are held jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation to the extent of 20% to the claimant. Hence, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant, praying for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

[2.] Considering the grounds raised in the appeal memo and the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant, this Court, vide order dated 20.08.2015, had admitted the appeal. The record and proceedings were called for.

[3.] Learned advocate Mr. Vishal C. Mehta has appeared for the appellant-original claimant. Learned advocate Mr. Mitesh L. Rangras has appeared for the respondent no.3-The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Learned advocate Mr. Vijay H. Nagesh has appeared for the respondent no.5 and learned advocate Mr. Y.J. Patel have appeared for the respondent no.2. Despite service of rule upon respondent nos.4 and 6, no appearance was entered. Respondent no.1 was deleted from the array of the parties.

[4.] Considering the limited issue involved, with the able assistance of learned advocates on record, the appeal was finally heard.

[5.] Learned advocate Mr. Vishal C. Mehta appearing for the appellant-original claimant has assailed the impugned judgment and award mainly on the issue of quantum of compensation, as being determined by the Tribunal on lower side. Inviting my attention to the case pleased by the original claimant, learned advocate has submitted that the Tribunal materially erred in assessing the income of the claimant as Rs.3,000/- per month. According to him, at the time of the accident, the victim was earning his livelihood by doing farming. It was submitted that he was earning annual income of Rs.1,50,000/-. The Tribunal, in absence of any documentary evidence with regard to quantity of crops, income, bills, voucher, accounts etc. being produced on record and noticing the fact that the agricultural land had still remained with the claimant, had fixed the income of the claimant as Rs.36,000/- per annum.

[5.1] Disputing the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal, learned advocate has submitted that even considering the minimum wages prevailing at the time of the accident, the monthly income of the claimant could have been considered as Rs.4,600/- per month. Inviting my attention to the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal, learned advocate has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider the prospective income of the claimant, considering the fact that the claimant was self employed and his age being determined in the age group of 26 to 30 years i.e. below 40 years, applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, at least 40% rise towards future income is required to be considered. Learned advocate has, therefore, urged this Court to fix the prospective income of the claimant as Rs.6,440/- (Rs. 4600/- + Rs. 1840/- {40%}).

[5.2] Learned advocate has not disputed the di