JUDGMENT :

NISHA M. THAKORE, J.

1. The present appeal is filed at the instance of the original claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 27.5.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kutch at Bhuj in MACP No.241 of 2008. By the said judgment and award, the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition preferred by the original claimant under Section 166 of the Act holding them entitled to seek recovery of a sum of Rs.4,85,000/- as compensation from the original opponent nos. 4 and 5 jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual realization with proportionate costs. The Tribunal has thus exonerated the original opponents no. 1 and 2 from their liability to pay any amount of compensation to the claimant. Hence, present appeal praying for enhancement of further amount of compensation.

2. Considering the grounds raised in the appeal memo and submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant, this Court vide order dated 30.07.2015 had admitted the appeal. The record and proceedings were called for. The record suggest that the attempts were made to serve respondent no.4, however in absence of correct address being furnished on record, the notice of admission had remained unserved qua respondent no.4. This Court vide order dated 30.07.2018 considering the fact that the Insurance Company has not challenged the award and there is no dispute with regard to accident and the liability, the notice qua respondent no.4 was dispensed with and proceedings were directed to be conducted ex-parte qua respondent no.4. Respondent no.3 has been deleted from the array of the parties. Learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent no.2- Insurance Company whereas learned advocate Mr. Nikunt Raval has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent no.5- Insurance Company, which is Insurance Company of the offending vehicle involved in the accident. With the able assistance of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the appeal was peremptorily heard finally.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Vishal C. Mehta has appeared on behalf of the appellant- original claimant and has assailed the impugned judgment and award mainly on the ground that the quantum of compensation of Rs.4,85,000/- as determined by the Tribunal is on the lower side. It was submitted that the Tribunal committed grave error in not appreciating the evidence of the claimant in its right perspective. Inasmuch as the claimant had on oath stated before the Tribunal that he used to earn income of Rs.4,000/- per month by working as a cleaner. In his cross-examination, the aforesaid evidence of the claimant has remained uncontroverted. He has further pointed out that no contradictory evidence has been led by either of the respondent Insurance Companies. With such evidence on record, in absence of any rebuttal of the case put forward by the claimant, the Tribunal committed error in fixing the notional monthly income of the claimant as Rs.2,500/- only. The attention of this Court was invited to the standard rates of minimum wages notified by the State Government as prevailing during the time of accident. It was submitted that the accident had taken place on 6th January 2008 and considering the notification issued by the State Government under the Minimum Wages Act, during the period between 1st October 2007 to 31st March 2008, the minimum wages notified in the case of skilled workmen was Rs.2,800/-. Learned advocate has therefore urged this Court to redetermine the income of the claimant.

3.1. As regards prospective income of the claimant is concerned, learned advocate had fairly pointed out that in view of the subsequent law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, considering