In motor accident claims, tribunals should determine compensation based on the preponderance of probability. When evidence regarding occupation and earnings is provided, ignoring it in favor of minimal notional income is improper. Awards must include statutory future prospects and conform to established guidelines for conventional heads of damage.

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE --Sd/-

======================================

======================================

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Arpit P. Patel, learned advocate for the appellant. Ms. Maithili D. Mehta, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent no.2 Union. The respondent no.1, who is the driver of the offending vehicle, has been deleted pursuant to the order dated 29th August, 2017 passed by this Court. With the able assistance of learned advocates on record, the present appeal is peremptorily heard finally.

2. The present appeal is filed at the instance of the original claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 26th April, 2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in MACP no.855 of 2002. By the said judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the original claimants, holding them entitled to seek recovery of sum of Rs.4,44,320/- towards compensation from the original opponents, jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realization. However, though the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition, has not entertained the entire claim of Rs.15,00,000/- as prayed for as compensation. Hence, the present appeal, praying for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and award on the issue of contributory negligence and the quantum of compensation being determined on lower side.

3.1 Learned advocate has invited my attention to the manner in which the accident was reported and has submitted that the Tribunal committed grave error in determining the contributory negligence of the deceased to the extent of 20%. Referring to the cross-examination of the driver of the offending vehicle, whose evidence has been recorded at Exh.28, it was submitted that the Tribunal failed to take note of his admission wherein he has conceded to the suggestion that he had not seen the scooter coming from the left side. According to the learned advocate, the driver of the offending truck was therefore solely negligent which led to occurrence of an accident.

3.2 Learned advocate had further submitted that the deceased was a B.Sc. graduate and was serving in a private firm named Sundar Balan as Clerk, whereby he was earning Rs.6,700/- per month. In support of such a claim, the income certificate has been produced on record at Exh.22 by the claimants. The father of the deceased has in his deposition made specific assertion and despite the income certificate being produced on record, and the aforesaid evidence being not rebutted by the respondent no.2, the Tribunal has proceeded to fix the notional income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month. According to the learned advocate, considering the educational background of the deceased and the income certificate produced on record, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.6,700/- per month.

3.3 Learned advocate had also disputed the future rise of income being confined to 30% instead of 50%. The reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd.,