JUDGMENT : 1. The present First Appeals, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are preferred by the appellants – original claimants, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 05.02.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Dang at Ahwa in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.75 of 2012 and 106 of 2012, by which the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,51,045/- and Rs.1,20,256/- with 7.5% p.a. interest to the claimants, holding opponent Nos.1 to 3 liable, jointly and severally. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: In M.A.C.P. No.75 of 2012:- 2.1 On 13.06.2012 at about 1:30 p.m., deceased - Govindbhai (husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 &3) with his friend Sakharambhai Bhangubhai Chaudhry were going from forest Bimbre depot to Village Rambhas after closing their measurement work by motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-5-EA-379, which is owned by deceased – Govindbhai himself and Sakharam was travelling as a pillion rider with him. When they reached at the place of accident, one Eicher tempo bearing registration No.GJ-6Y-8020, which is owned by Opponent No.2 and driven by Opponent No.1 came in rash and negligent manner and in high speed and dashed with the said motorcycle of the deceased - Govindbhai. As a result, deceased – Govindbhai died on the spot and pillion rider Sakharam sustained grievous injuries and fracture also. At the time of accident, deceased – Govindbhai was aged about 48 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. by doing measurement work at forest Timbre depot of Forest Department. In M.A.C.P. No.106 of 2012:- 2.2 At the time of accident, pillion rider - Sakharam Bhandubhai Choudhry was aged about 52 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. by doing measurement work at Timber depot of Forest Department. In the said accident, he has sustained injuries on different parts of the body thereafter, he has taken to Primary Health Centre at Waghai for his primary treatment and thereafter, he was shifted to Parmar Orthopedic Hospital at Navsari where he has taken further treatment as an indoor patient from 13.06.2012 to 23.06.2012 (10 days). 2.3 Thereafter, claim petition Nos.75 of 2012 and 106 of 2012, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are filed by the appellants – original claimants to get the compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- and Rs.5,75,000/- respectively. 2.3 Thereafter, claim petition Nos.75 of 2012 and 106 of 2012, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are filed by the appellants – original claimants to get the compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- and Rs.5,75,000/- respectively. 2.4 Further, the Tribunal has consolidated the matter on the application given the learned advocates for the respective parties and M.A.C.P. No.75 of 2012 is treated as main mater and evidence is recorded in the main matter. 2.5 Notices were issued to the opponents though served. Opponent Nos. 1 and 2 have appeared and have also filed written statement at Exh.18 in M.A.C.P. No.75 of 2012 and at Exh.15 in M.A.C.P. No.106 of 2012 by denying the averments made in the claim petition. Opponent No.3 – insurance company has appeared and filed its written statement at Exh.28 in M.A.C.P. No.75 of 2012 and at Exh.24 in M.A.C.P. No.106 of 2012 by disputing the averments made in the claim petition. 2.6 The Tribunal has framed the issues at Exh.20 in M.A.C.P. No. 75 of 2012 and at Exh.18 in M.A.C.P. No.106 of 2012. Thereafter, the Tribunal has recorded the evidence of the respective claimants. Claimant No.1 has deposed at Exh.32 in M.A.C.P. No.75 of 2012 in support of his submissions has also deposed in M.A.C.P. No.106 of 2012 by supporting averments made in the claim petition. Thereafter, the Tribunal has recorded the evidence of the respective claimants. Claimant No.1 has deposed at Exh.32 in M.A.C.P. No.75 of 2012 in support of his submissions has also deposed in M.A.C.P. No.106 of 2012 by supporting averments made in the claim petition. The insurance company has examined the driver - opponent No.1 at Exh.55 and has also produced on record Panchnama at Exh.38 in M.A.C.P. No. 106 of 2012 and F.I.R. is also produced on record at Exh.37 in M.A.C.P. No. 106 of 2012 and deposition of eyewitness of the accident at Exh.40 is also produced on record but the Tribunal has considered to the extent 40% contributory negligence on the part of deceased – Govindbhai, who was driving the motorcycle and the Tribunal has attributed to the extent 60% on the part of the driver of the Eicher tempo after considering the documentary evidence and regarding income which is coming from the deposition of one Vrajlal Manchhabhai Gamit, who stepped in the witness box as he is working as a R.F.O. at Waghai since last six years and under his supervision, workers do their measurement work of timber and from his deposition, it is found that amount of Rs.14,596/- is paid to deceased for a period of 15 day work in May, 2012, the deposition of said witness is produced at Exh.45. 2.7 After considering the submissions and documentary evidence as well as oral evidence of both the claim petitions, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petitions, as noted above. 2.8 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award and on the aspect of negligence, the appellants – original claimants have preferred the present appeals for enhancement in the awarded amount by the Tribunal. Submission Qua the First Appeal No.2277 of 2014:- 3.1 Learned advocate Mr. 2.8 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award and on the aspect of negligence, the appellants – original claimants have preferred the present appeals for enhancement in the awarded amount by the Tribunal. Submission Qua the First Appeal No.2277 of 2014:- 3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Hiren M. Modi for the appellants – original claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in considering the negligence to the extent 40% on the part of driver of motorcycle – Govindbhai, who was examined by the driver of Eicher tempo and also the Tribunal has committed error in considering the deposition of Sakharambhai Bhangubhai Choudhry, who is pillion rider, who is one of the claimant of First Appeal No.2278 of 2014 and was also an eyewitness and as per his deposition, his motorcycle vehicle was going on correct side of the road and there is no curvature at the place of accident. Further, he has submitted that deceased - Govindbhai was well versed in driving and it is denied in cross-examination that deceased – Govindbhai knows driving about driving even witness, which is examined at Exh.55 the driver of Eicher tempo by the insurance company, the driver of Eicher tempo has also said that he has applied the break but motorcycle was coming in excessive speed, therefore, accident is occurred. Further, he has submitted that if we peruse the F.I.R. at Exh.37 and Panchnama at Exh.38 as well as deposition of Sakharambhai at Exh.40, it clearly reveals that there is no curvature on the road and on the contrary it appears that opponent No.1 by driving Eicher tempo came on wrong side from Giradhodh Fatak Crossing at high speed without observing traffic rules and without taking proper care and Eicher tempo got damaged on the bumper from front side and the Eicher tempo is also found in bend condition and front portion of bonnet cabin was also found dogged and signal light is also found in broken condition and motorcycle is found under the wheel of tempo from driver side, therefore, he has submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in attributing negligence to the extent 40% to the driver of the motorcycle. He has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs. He has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs. Surinder Singh & Others reported in 2008 ACJ 1834 , and has submitted that even in that case, the person is not having any valid and effective driving licence then also the Hon’ble Apex Court said that merely not possessing the driving licence is not even a reason to consider the driver guilty of contributory negligence, therefore, he has submitted that on this aspect only, interference of this Court is required to be called for in the present First Appeal No.2277 of 2017. 3.2 Further, he has submitted that the Tribunal has not properly considered income of Rs.4,000/-, which should be amount of Rs.10,000/ as per the pleadings of the claimant - but considering minimum wages prevailing in the year 2012, the income should be considered Rs.4,710/- p.m. Further, at the time of accident, the deceased was aged less than 50 years and as per pleadings, deceased was aged about 48 years, therefore, to the extent 25% addition is required towards future prospect as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , therefore, it comes to Rs.5,887/- after adding to the extent 25% towards future prospect and further, looking to the dependents, there is three dependents of the deceased – Govindbhai, therefore, to the extent 1/3rd is required to be deducted as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and after deducting amount of Rs.1,962/-, it come to Rs.3,925/- towards future loss of income and further, applying multiplying by 12 month and further applying multiplier of 13, looking to the age of the deceased, therefore, it comes to Rs.6,12,300/- and further, by adding amount of Rs.1,20,000 towards loss consortium as per the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 as there are three dependents and by adding amount of Rs.15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and towards loss of estate, it comes to Rs.7,02,300/- by not apportioning any contributory negligence and therefore, the Tribunal has already awarded amount of Rs.2,51,045/-, therefore, the present appeal is required to be allowed by enhancing appropriately in the amount awarded by the Tribunal in the First No.2277 of 2014. In First Appeal No. 2278 of 2014:- 3.3 Learned advocate Mr. Hiren M. Modi for the appellants – original claimants has submitted that there is no question of contributory negligence as the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider and the Tribunal has rightly not considered by not awarding any contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. In First Appeal No. 2278 of 2014:- 3.3 Learned advocate Mr. Hiren M. Modi for the appellants – original claimants has submitted that there is no question of contributory negligence as the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider and the Tribunal has rightly not considered by not awarding any contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. Further, he has submitted that at the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 52 years, and as per pleadings his monthly income is amount of Rs.10,000/- p.m. but the Tribunal has considered amount of Rs.4,000/- p.m. and also the Tribunal has considered the disability to the extent 9% and further, the Tribunal has considered amount of Rs.360/- as the income, which was multiplied by 12 month and further, multiplier of 11, it comes to Rs.47,520/- and further, he has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering and further, awarded amount of Rs.6,000/- towards special diet, attendant and transportation and further awarded amount of Rs.44,736/- towards medical expenses and further, awarded amount of Rs.12,000/- towards actual loss of income for three month, therefore, he has submitted that as per the minimum wages prevailing in the year 2012, amount of Rs.4,710/- p.m. should be considered as monthly income and after considering to the extent 9%, it comes to Rs.424/- and further, multiplied by 12 month and further, applying multiplier of 11, it comes to Rs.55,968/- and since there is longer period of hospitalization and surgery of left leg of the claimant, instead of amount of Rs.10,000/-, amount of Rs.25,000/- is required to be awarded towards pain, shock and suffering. Further, he has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,000/- towards special diet, attendant charges and transposition charges, instead of Rs.6,000/- amount of Rs.10,000/- is required to be awarded. Further, he has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.44,736/- towards medical bill, which is proper as per the medical bills, which is produced on record. Further, he has submitted that actual loss is also required to be enhanced by considered income of Rs.4,710/- p.m., therefore, it comes to Rs.14,130/- instead of Rs.12,000/- which is considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, the present appeal is required to be allowed by enhancing appropriately in the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Further, he has submitted that actual loss is also required to be enhanced by considered income of Rs.4,710/- p.m., therefore, it comes to Rs.14,130/- instead of Rs.12,000/- which is considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, the present appeal is required to be allowed by enhancing appropriately in the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Palak H. Thakkar for respondent No.3 – insurance company has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered the aspect of income and other aspects. Further, he has fairly considered that income is Rs.4,710/- p.m. as per minimum wages prevailing in the year 2012 and accordingly, the income can be considered Rs.4,710/- p.m. However, he has disputed that the negligence in the First Appeal No.2277 of 2014, which is considered to the extent 40% of motorcycle is just and proper as deceased – Govindbhai was not knowing proper driving and looking to the evidence available on record like the deposition of driver of the Eicher tempo and F.I.R. as well as Panchnama, the Tribunal has attributed contributory negligence to the extent 40%, which is just and proper, therefore, no interference is required to be called for and accordingly, both the present appeals can marginally be enhanced by considering income amount of Rs.4,710/- as minimum wages instead of Rs.4,000/-, which is considered by the Tribunal. 5. It is noteworthy to mention that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which gives paramount importance to the concept of ‘just and fair’ compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the concept of ‘just compensation’ which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the claimants. Findings qua the First Appeal No.2277 of 2014:- 6.1 I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties. I have perused the record and proceedings. I have perused the impugned judgment and award. Findings qua the First Appeal No.2277 of 2014:- 6.1 I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties. I have perused the record and proceedings. I have perused the impugned judgment and award. It transpires that the Tribunal has committed error by not believing the version of eyewitness Sakharambhai Bhangubhai Chaudhry, who has deposed at Exh.40, who has categorically stated that Eicher tempo had come from wrong side and he had categorically denied in his cross-examination that neither there was rain at the time of accident nor there was any curvature on the place of accident. Moreover, from the F.I.R. and Panchnama, which is produced at Exh.37 and 38 in the M.A.C.P. No.106 of 2012 it clearly reveals that opponent No.1 by driving Eicher tempo coming on wrong side from Giradhodh Fatak Crossing at high speed without observing traffic rules and dashed with the motorcycle and the Tribunal has picked up the version of witness – opponent No.1, who was examined by insurance company at Exh.55, who was driver of the Eicher tempo and naturally, he will depose as per his convenience and the documentary evidence, which is produced on record by way of F.I.R. and Panchnama cannot be ignored and therefore, the Tribunal has committed error by coming to the conclusion that to the extent 40% should be attributed to the driver of motorcycle and the Tribunal has also not considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court relied by learned advocate Mr. Modi in the case Sudhir Kumar Rana, and more particularly, paras 6 to 8 are relevant, which are extracted as under: “6. A contributory negligence may be defined as negligence in not avoiding the consequences arising from the negligence of some other person, when means and opportunity are afforded to do so. The question of contributory negligence would arise only when both parties are found to be negligent. 7. The question is, negligence for what? If the complainant must be guilty of an act or omission which materially contributed to the accident and resulted in injury and damage, the concept of contributory negligence would apply. [See New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Avinash 1988 ACJ 322 (Raj.)] In T.O. Anthony v. Kavarnan & Ors. [ (2008) 3 SCC 748 , it was held: "6. 'Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. [See New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Avinash 1988 ACJ 322 (Raj.)] In T.O. Anthony v. Kavarnan & Ors. [ (2008) 3 SCC 748 , it was held: "6. 'Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrong-doers. In such a case, each wrong doer, is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrong-doer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrong-doer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence of the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stands reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence. 7. Therefore, when two vehicles are involved in an accident, and one of the drivers claims compensation from the other driver alleging negligence, and the other driver denies negligence or claims that the injured claimant himself was negligent, then it becomes necessary to consider whether the injured claimant was negligent and if so, whether he was solely or partly responsible for the accident and the extent of his responsibility, that is his contributory negligence. Therefore where the injured is himself partly liable, the principle of 'composite negligence' will not apply nor can there be an automatic inference that the negligence was 50:50 as has been assumed in this case. The Tribunal ought to have examined the extent of contributory negligence of the appellant and thereby avoided confusion between composite negligence and contributory negligence. The High Court has failed to correct the said error." 8. The Tribunal ought to have examined the extent of contributory negligence of the appellant and thereby avoided confusion between composite negligence and contributory negligence. The High Court has failed to correct the said error." 8. If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini-truck which was being driven rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not having a licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence.” Therefore, I hold that driver of the Eicher tempo is solely negligent, looking to the F.I.R., Panchnama and deposition of Sakharambhai and therefore, the Tribunal has committed error in holding contributory negligence to the extent 40% to the driver of the motorcycle and accordingly, the finding of Tribunal is required to be set aside by holding driver of the Eicher tempo, solely negligent. 6.2 Further, for considering the quantum of compensation, if we consider amount of Rs.4,710/- as per prevailing minimum wages and looking to the age of deceased that at the time of accident, deceased was aged below 50 years and as per pleadings about 48 years, therefore, to the extent 25% is required to be added towards future prospect as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and after deducting to the extent 1/3rd, it comes to Rs.47,100/- annual dependency and further, applying multiplier of 13, it comes to Rs.6,12,300/- towards future loss of income which is required to be awarded and further, amount of Rs.1,20,000/- is required to be awarded towards loss of consortium as there are three dependents of the deceased- Govindbhai, therefore, amount of Rs.1,20,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium. Further, amount of Rs.15,000/- each is awarded towards loss of funeral expenses and loss of estate as per the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of (i) Pranay Sethi (supra) (ii) Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), total amount of compensation comes to Rs.7,62,300/-, which is required to be awarded to the claimants in the claim petition. Therefore, after deducting the amount, which is awarded by the Tribunal Rs.2,51,050/-, therefore, the enhancement of Rs.5,11,250/- with 7.5% p.a. interest is required to be awarded by allowing the First Appeal No.2277 of 2014, which would meet the ends of justice. 6.3 The fresh calculation for amount of compensation in First Appeal No.2277 of 2014 is as under: Sr.No. Particulars Amount of compensation 1. Loss of future income Rs.6,12,300/- 2. loss of consortium Rs.1,20,000/- 3. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- 4. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Total amount of compensation = Rs.7,62,300/- (with 7.5% p.a. interest) Findings qua the First Appeal No.2278 of 2014:- 6.4 Further, the Tribunal has considered disability to the extent 9% and income amount of Rs.4,000/- which is required to be considered Rs.4,710/- as per the minimum wages prevailing in the year 2012 and by applying multiplier of 11 as at the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 52 years and towards loss of future income, it comes to Rs.55,968/-. Further, the Tribunal has committed error in awarded amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain, shock & suffering, looking to the period of hospitalization and further follow up treatments, therefore, amount of Rs.25,000/- is required to be awarded towards pain, shock & suffering instead of Rs.10,000/-, which is awarded by the Tribunal. Further, amount of Rs.10,000/- is required to be awarded towards special diet, attendant charges and transportation charges in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Further, medical bill of amount of Rs.44,736/- is produced on record, which is just and proper as per medical bills and amount of Rs.44,736/- is required to be awarded towards medical expenses. Further, actual loss of income should be considered amount of Rs.4,710/- by considering income for three months, therefore, it comes to Rs.14,130/- instead of Rs.12,000/-, which is considered by the Tribunal and total amount of compensation comes to Rs.1,49,834/-, which is required to be awarded to the claimants in the claim petition. Further, actual loss of income should be considered amount of Rs.4,710/- by considering income for three months, therefore, it comes to Rs.14,130/- instead of Rs.12,000/-, which is considered by the Tribunal and total amount of compensation comes to Rs.1,49,834/-, which is required to be awarded to the claimants in the claim petition. Therefore, after deducting the amount, which is awarded by the Tribunal Rs.1,20,256/-, therefore, the enhancement of Rs.29,578/- with 7.5% p.a. interest is required to be awarded by allowing the First Appeal No.2278 of 2014, which would meet the ends of justice. 6.5 The calculation for amount of compensation in First Appeal No.2278 of 2014 is as under: Sr.No. Particulars Amount of compensation 1. Loss of future income Rs.55,968/- 2. Pain, shock and suffering Rs.25,000/- 3. Special diet, attendant and attendant charges Rs.10,000/- 4. Medical bills Rs.44,736/- 5. Actual loss of income Rs.14,130/- Total amount of compensation = Rs.1,49,834/-(with 7.5% p.a. interest) 7. In view of the above, the following order is passed: 7.1 The present Appeals are allowed, to the aforesaid extent. 7.2 The impugned judgment and award passed in M.A.C.P. No.75 of 2012 by the Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition is hereby modified to the extent Rs.7,62,300/- by enhancing the amount of Rs.5,11,250/-, to the claimants, with 7.5% p.a. interest, from the date of claim petition, holding opponent Nos.1 to 3 liable, jointly and severally. 7.3 The impugned judgment and award passed in M.A.C.P. No.106 of 2012 by the Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition is hereby modified to the extent Rs.1,49,834/- by enhancing the amount of Rs.29,587/-, to the claimants, with 7.5% p.a. interest, from the date of claim petition, holding opponent Nos.1 to 3 liable, jointly and severally. 7.4 The other directions given by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award will remain as it is. 7.5 The respondent No.3 – insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation with 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition before the concerned Tribunal, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 7.6 On depositing of such amount in both the claim petitions, the concerned Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount to the claimants, by following due procedure, by account payee cheque, after proper verification. 7.6 On depositing of such amount in both the claim petitions, the concerned Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount to the claimants, by following due procedure, by account payee cheque, after proper verification. 7.7 The Tribunal shall deduct the deficit court fees, if not paid and in accordance with law, in both the claim petitions. 7.8 Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith in both the claim petitions.