JUDGMENT : 1. By way of present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 the appellant - original claimant has challenge the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and award dated 06.08.2008 passed by M.A.C.T. (Auxiliary), 4th Fast Track Court, Junagadh in M.A.C.P. No. 289 of 1997. 2. The brief background of the facts which has given rise to present appeal is that on 15.02.1997, at around 7.00 p.m., Shri Khakhabhai Meghjibhai Makwana who was traveling in a Rickshaw bearing registration No. GJ-11-U-5398 with luggage, on Mendarada Badalpur Road near Village: Bagdu, the said rickshaw was dashed with a motorcycle and though there was no fault on the part of the passenger Shri Khakhabhai Makwana who sustained serious injuries. The injuries were on the ribs, shoulder as well as in the left leg, right arm and said fractures injuries on account of which, he was taken to Civil Hospital at Mendarada and later was required to be shifted to Civil Hospital, Junagadh and thereafter, for further treatment he was taken to hospital of an Orthopedic Surgeon Dr. M.M. Dolakia at Junagadh. 2.1 It is the case of the appellant that at the time of accident Shri Khakhabhai Makwana who was aged about 50 year and was earning Rs.1,500/- per month by doing the labour work. On the basis of aforesaid facts and situation, a claim petition was preferred by Khakhabhai Makwana which was numbered as Claim Case No.289 of 1997 before MACT, Junagadh inter alia praying for a compensation to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. Upon service of summons, the original opponent No.1 was deleted by passing an order at Exh.15 whereas opponent No.4 was joined in the proceedings pursuant to the order passed below Exh.22. The owner of the vehicle did not file the written statement and it appears that though served they did not remain present to contest the claim petition. During pendency of the claim petition, after almost a period of around 8 years on 16.01.2004, the original claimant Shri Khakhabhai Meghjibhai Makwana has passed away and as such the widow of deceased - claimant was joined as legal heirs and representative to continue with the proceedings. During pendency of the claim petition, after almost a period of around 8 years on 16.01.2004, the original claimant Shri Khakhabhai Meghjibhai Makwana has passed away and as such the widow of deceased - claimant was joined as legal heirs and representative to continue with the proceedings. During the process of adjudication before the Tribunal the First Information Report, the panchnama of the site of accident, the note of the Medical Officer, namely, Referral Hospital and Community Health Centre, Mendarada and the certificate issued by another Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Junagadh as well as the certificate issued by Dr. M. M. Dolakiya, were also produced on record including First page of the charge-sheet as well as registration book of vehicle in question. The panchnama as stated above was carried out in the presence of the police authority at the site of accident on 16.02.1997 at around 10.30 hours. The opponent Insurance Company submitted its written statement and based upon the claims the issues were framed at Exh.28 on 17.04.2006 and this has taken place after almost a period of 9 years from the date of presentation of the claim petition. During the process of adjudication the deposition of Somiben Khakhabhai Makwana was recorded at Exh.49 and the medical certificates were also produced vide Exhs.31, 32, 33 and 43. The disability certificate of the Doctor concerned was reflecting that approximately 18% disability as a whole was certified and the said certificate was produced before the learned Tribunal vide Mark 74/1 and based upon aforesaid documentary as well as ocular evidence, the learned Presiding Officer was pleased to dispose of the claim petition by awarding mere some of Rs.13,000/- only with cost and interest as against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- and it is this award which has been passed by the learned Tribunal is made the subject matter of present First Appeal before the Court. 3. The appeal came up for consideration after rooted through the Lok Adalat, in which, Mr. Amar D. Mithani, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Ms. Hina Desai, learned advocate appearing for the defendant No.2 - Insurance Company. 4. Mr. Amar D. Mithani, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is quite unreasonable and not based upon proper analysis of material. Amar D. Mithani, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Ms. Hina Desai, learned advocate appearing for the defendant No.2 - Insurance Company. 4. Mr. Amar D. Mithani, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is quite unreasonable and not based upon proper analysis of material. Despite the fact that deceased claimant had suffered a bodily injuries pursuant to accident practical all parts of the body and had to remain in hospital quite for some time as indicated and still a meager amount of Rs.13,000/- came to be awarded and as such the order passed deserves to be corrected. It has further been contended that to substitute the claim the necessary documentary evidence was specifically laid before the learned Tribunal, the certificate issued by Medical Officer who also treated had also brought to the notice to the learned Tribunal and also panchnama of scene of offence and in addition thereto the complaint lodged was also brought to the notice but still the same had not been properly appreciated. In fact, the deposition of widow of Khakhabhai Meghjibhai Makwana at Exh.49 was also indicating that deceased was earner of the family and he was doing the labour work and on account of accident, the entire family had to suffer. The original claimant was hospitalized as indicated above and could not work for a pretty long period of almost 6 months and during pendency of the claim petition, the deceased passed away and as such since the deceased could not deposed as the claim petition was not heard for a pretty long period the learned Tribunal ought not to have ignored the relevant minimum papers and as such the order impugned deserves to be modified by enhancing the amount of compensation to the extent of Rs.32,000/- with proportionate cost and interest and to that extent the appeal deserves to be allowed. 4.1 Mr. Mithani, learned advocate for the appellant has also submitted that normally under the various heads the amount to be quantified for the purpose of giving compensation but here the learned Tribunal has not considered the pain, shock and suffering heads nor discuss about the same though for quite some time the deceased claimant was to take a treatment. The medical expenses and the relevant certificates are enough to suggest that compensation has not been adequately awarded. 5. The medical expenses and the relevant certificates are enough to suggest that compensation has not been adequately awarded. 5. As against this, Ms. Hina Desai, learned advocate appearing for the Insurance Company has submitted that the insurance policy was an act policy which fact is not in dispute and as such the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with liability of compensation. It is well settled proposition, according to Ms. Desai, learned advocate that when the insurance policy is an act policy company cannot be held responsible and when Insurance Company itself is not liable to make the payment of compensation, the pay and recovery order may not be passed and this proposition of law is now quite settled by catena of decisions. Hence, the order deserves to be quashed insofar as it relates to the Insurance Company. Further, though served the other opponent, namely, opponent Nos. 1 and 3 have not remain present to contest nor came to contest the appeal and as such since the appeal is of 2009, the Court has taken up for its final disposal. 6. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material on record, it appears that on account of vehicular accident, undisputedly, original claimant sustained fracture injuries practically allover the body and to that effect, treatment and medical certificates were also produced on record by the original claimant. On account of these injuries, for a pretty long period, original claimant had to remain in hospital as well as could not attend the work for quite long time, as indicated from the record, and as such claim which has already been awarded is appearing to be a meagre as compared to what original claimant has suffered. It has been clearly asserted by claimant on evidence that on account of this accident, he could not attend the work for a period of six months and as against the claim of Rs.1 lac, meager amount of Rs.13,000/- which has been awarded is found to be unreasonable and not on the principle of reasonable and fair compensation. 7. It has been clearly asserted by claimant on evidence that on account of this accident, he could not attend the work for a period of six months and as against the claim of Rs.1 lac, meager amount of Rs.13,000/- which has been awarded is found to be unreasonable and not on the principle of reasonable and fair compensation. 7. Further, it also appears from the record that learned Tribunal has not given any attention to pain, shock and suffering which normally deserves to be considered and as such on the principle of reasonable and fair compensation, as propounded by the decision delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent time, it appears to this Court that amount deserves to be enhanced to some extent. From the pleadings and assertion made in the first appeal, it appears that very reasonable sum has been demanded to an extent of Rs.32,000/- in addition to what has been awarded, that is found to be reasonable in view of the fact that looking to the injuries, original claimant could not attend the work for a pretty long period and his entire family has suffered as he is the bread earner of the family and during pendency of claim petition, original claimant has expired. So, considering totality of the circumstance, as indicated above, it appears to this Court that claim put forth by the claimant to enhance amount to an extent of Rs.32,000/- appears to be reasonable, just and proper. Hence, to that extent, case is made out by the appellant. 8. Additionally, since the Court has considered the principle of reasonable and fair compensation as propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision in the case of Meena Pawaia & Ors., v. Ashraf Ali & Ors., reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1083, the Court deems it proper to quote hereunder certain observations which are contained in paragraph 12 in support of the conclusion:- “12. xxx xxx 55. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of just compensation and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. The conception of just compensation has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non- violation of the principle of equitability. In a case of death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology for compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion vested in the tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the part of the tribunal to be guided by the expression, that is, just compensation. The determination has to be on the foundation of evidence brought on record as regards the age and income of the deceased and thereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied. The formula relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 ] and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari [Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 ]. The age and income, as stated earlier, have to be established by adducing evidence. The tribunal and the courts have to bear in mind that the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in proximity to reality. It is a well- accepted norm that money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum. In such an adjudication, the duty of the tribunal and the courts is difficult and hence, an endeavour has been made by this Court for standardisation which in its ambit includes addition of future prospects on the proven income at present. As far as future prospects are concerned, there has been standardisation keeping in view the principle of certainty, stability and consistency. We approve the principle of standardisation so that a specific and certain multiplicand is determined for applying the multiplier on the basis of age.” 9. As far as future prospects are concerned, there has been standardisation keeping in view the principle of certainty, stability and consistency. We approve the principle of standardisation so that a specific and certain multiplicand is determined for applying the multiplier on the basis of age.” 9. In view of the aforesaid circumstance and in view of the material which is available on record in the form of deposition, in the original medical certificates, in the form of treatment papers and in the form of ocular evidence, this Court is of the opinion that appeal deserves to be accepted as the amount which has been claimed of Rs.32,000/- is just and proper to be awarded. However, said amount to be awarded with 6% interest from the date of present order and not from the date of original claim petition. Hence, considering the situation which is prevailing on record, following order is passed which would meet the ends of justice while allowing the present appeal: ORDER (i) First Appeal is ALLOWED in PART. (ii) Impugned award dated 6.8.2008 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) 4th Fast track Court, Junagadh stands modified to the extent that in addition to what has been awarded, amount of Rs.32,000/- to be awarded and appellant is entitled to recover the same from the opponents except respondent Insurance Company with 6% interest from the date of the present order till realization. (iii) Rest of the order is unaltered and decree be drawn accordingly.