ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rituraj Meena, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent no.3- Insurance Company.

2. The present appeal is filed at the instance of the original claimants who are heirs and legal representatives of the deceased who had unfortunately expired due to accidental injury sustained by him in motor vehicle accident. The challenge is made to the judgment and award dated 11.05.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Vadodara in MACP No.546 of 2007. By the said judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the present appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 holding them entitled to recover sum of Rs.7,71,200/- to be realized from the original opponents jointly and severally, with proportionate cost and interest at the rate of 9% from the date of presentation of claim petition till its actual realization. Since, the Tribunal has not entirely allowed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.10 lakhs with interest, the claimants being aggrieved are in appeal.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and award mainly on the ground of quantum of compensation being determined on lower side. It was submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the deceased was earning his livelihood by driving heavy goods vehicle and it was specifically pleaded that he was earning amount of Rs.4,500/- per month and was also getting additional income of Rs.2,000/- towards Bhatha. It was further submitted that the evidence of the wife of the deceased who is one of the claimants has been recorded at Exhibit 15 wherein she has deposed before the Tribunal about the aforesaid fact though she has fairly conceded to the fact that no documentary evidence regarding proof of income has been produced on record. However, the material in the nature of driving license of the deceased has been produced on record at Exhibit 28. The Tribunal, while appreciating the aforesaid evidence on record though has believed the case of the claimants that the deceased was engaged in driving heavy goods vehicle however has determined the income as Rs.3,000/- The reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Minu Rout and another versus Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and others reported in 2013 ACJ 2544. It was pointed out that in a fatal accident case of the driver of a car which had taken place in the year 2004, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken judicial notice of the fact that the job of a driver can be considered as skilled job and has therefore determined the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month. Learned advocate had therefore urged this court to consider the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month. It was further pointed out that the deceased was survived by five members in the family and therefore considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Court Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Tribunal ought to have considered deduction of 1/4th instead of 1/5th towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has though considered 50% future rise on the established income of Rs.3,000/- while considering the future monthly prospective income of the deceased, however, in view of the well-settled principles of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, considering the fact that the deceased was aged 32 years at the time of accident and was self-employed, the future rise may be ascertained as 40% of the established income of Rs.4,500/-. As regards the multiplier of 16 being adopted by the Tribunal, learned advocate had fairly submitted that the same has rightly been applied in the facts of the c