In motor vehicle accident claims, unless independent evidence rebuts the claimant's case, contributory negligence cannot be assumed. Compensation must be just and reasonable, incorporating realistic notional income assessment, future prospects, and non-pecuniary losses such as pain, suffering, and attendant charges, regardless of the absence of documentary proof.

JUDGMENT :

NISHA M. THAKORE, J.

1. The present appeal is filed at the instance of the original claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 30.06.2014, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Gondal in MACP No. 249 of 2001.

2. By the said judgment and award the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the original claimants under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 holding them entitled to recover a sum of Rs.5,13,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realisation with proportionate costs, from the original opponents jointly and severally. Hence, the present appeal praying for enhancement of further amount of compensation of Rs.4,90,000/- with interest and cost.

3. Considering the grounds raised in the appeal memo and the submissions made by learned advocate appearing for the appellant, this Court vide order dated 30.09.2015 has admitted the appeal. The record and proceedings were called for. From the record it transpires that attempts were made to serve respondent No.1 namely the owner of the offending vehicle. However, notice of admission of appeal had remained unserved qua respondent No. 1. In such circumstances, the appeal was directed to be dismissed for non-prosecution vide order 29.11.2017 passed in the present proceedings.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Palak H. Thakkar has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2-Insurance Company. With the able assistance of learned advocate on record appearing for the respective parties, the appeal was finally heard.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Deep D. Vyas appearing for the appellants has at the outset prayed for an adjournment on the ground that appropriate application for restoration of the appeal qua original respondent No.1 namely the owner of the offending vehicle has been preferred before the Registry on 27.03.2026. Despite attempts being made to seek circulation the matter could not be placed before this Court. Considering the fact that the appeal is of the year 2015, in absence of any appeal or cross-objections being filed by the respondent No.2- Insurance Company disputing their liability to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle, considering the fact that the interest of the owner of the offending vehicle is represented through counsel of Insurance Company, the appeal was taken up in absence of the owner of the offending vehicle.

6. On merits, learned advocate for the appellant has vehemently assailed the impugned judgment and award on the ground of 10% contributory negligence attributed to the deceased as well as on the quantum of compensation.

6.1 Inviting my attention to the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal on the issue of negligence, learned advocate has submitted that no specific reasons has been assigned by the Tribunal to hold the deceased contributory negligent to the extent of 10% towards occurrence of accident. He had further submitted that even on perusal of the FIR which has been admitted as an evidence at Exh. 42, if appreciated in light of the case put forward by the claimants, it clearly suggest that the accident had occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. The panchnama of the place of acci