JUDGMENT : 1. Present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, arising out of Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1370 of 1992 is filed for the purpose of seeking enhancement of award of compensation then what has been awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Vadodara vide judgment and award dated 02.11.2001. 2. The brief facts leading to rise of the present appeal are that deceased injured Jyotindrabhai Chhaganbhai Patel along with brother Shaileshbhai was standing near the board of Vadsala village and both there waiting for bus to travel further and at that point of time, original opponent no. 1 without hooting the horn and observing the traffic rules came from Vadsala village for going towards Por by taking a sudden turn and on account of such, he lost control and the front portion of his scooter dashed against the leg of deceased injured and on account of such accident, the injured applicant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted in the nearby hospital of Dr. Ashok Patel for a considerable long time, where number of operations were carried out and during such operations, blood was also transfused, but the said applicant could not recovered and then succumbed to the injuries on 30.08.1995. 2.1. Initially the said deceased Jyotindrabhai Chhaganbhai Patel had filed claimed petition during his lifetime being Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1370 of 1992, but then on account of death of said injured claimant, legal heirs were brought on record and the claim petition was processed further. It was the assertion of the claimants at the relevant point of time that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.32,000/- per year and cultivating the land and in addition thereof he was also getting supervision charges, amounting to Rs.18,000/- from his brothers and as such, his overall net income was to the tune of Rs.50,000/- per annum. On account of said accidental injuries, one labourer was required to be engaged for supervision of cattle and they were paying Rs.600/-. On account these injuries, and then death, huge medical expenditure was required to be incurred and as such, the claim petition was filed for seeking compensation of Rs.6 lakhs under various heads. 2.3. Pursuant to the notices having been served upon the opponents, opponent no. On account these injuries, and then death, huge medical expenditure was required to be incurred and as such, the claim petition was filed for seeking compensation of Rs.6 lakhs under various heads. 2.3. Pursuant to the notices having been served upon the opponents, opponent no. 3 Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement denying all the averments and allegations and it has been contended that the petition is filed for seeking exaggerated quantum of compensation and, therefore, requested to dismiss the claim petition. Pursuant to the pleadings having been completed, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) before whom the claim petition was registered has framed the issues at Exhibit-34 in the following manner: “(1) Whether it is proved that the claimant sustained injuries and died on account of rashness or negligence in driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident ? (2) What amount, if any, the claimant is entitled to by way of compensation and from which of the opponents ? (3) What order ?” 2.4. After framing of the issues, both the sides have led their respective evidence in which one of the applicant – Premilaben wife of the injured deceased has examined herself at Exhibit-40 and to substantiate the claim and the factum of accident, one Shaileshbhai was also examined as witness no. 2 at Exhibit-50 who happened to be eye witness to the occurrence since he being brother has visualized the accident which took place. With a view to substantiate further, documentary evidence has also been led to justify the claim made in the petition. Originally the petition was filed by the injured applicant – Jyotindrabhai who died during the pendency of the claim petition and as such, by bringing necessary amendment, legal heirs were brought on record at Exhibit-27 and Exhibit-35 and the original claim of Rs.2 lakhs came to be enhanced to Rs.6 Lakhs as indicated above. Originally the petition was filed by the injured applicant – Jyotindrabhai who died during the pendency of the claim petition and as such, by bringing necessary amendment, legal heirs were brought on record at Exhibit-27 and Exhibit-35 and the original claim of Rs.2 lakhs came to be enhanced to Rs.6 Lakhs as indicated above. Both the sides led their respective evidence and after examining the material on record, documentary as well as oral testimony, learned Tribunal was pleased to pass an order on 02.11.2001 whereby, the claim petition came to be partly allowed by ordering to pay compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- with 9% interest as indicated in the order and since the said amount which has been awarded is too meager as compared to the claim, present first appeal has been filed for seeking enhancement of the said award. The operative part of the said award dated 02.11.2001 is reproduced hereunder :- “The claim Petition is partly allowed. The opponents are hereby directed to pay Rs.1,25,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand) to the claimant together with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of application till realization with proportionate costs. The interest amount of compensation, if any, paid or deposited under the principle of “No fault liability” shall be adjusted from the aforesaid amount of compensation awarded in this final adjudication. Necessary orders as regards safe investment, apportionment, deficit court fees, if any, will be passed later on. The liability of the opponents shall be joint and several. Award be drawn up accordingly. Opponents to bear their own costs.” 2.5. Mr. M.T.M. Hakim, learned advocate appearing for the applicants – claimants has vehemently contended that the amount which has been awarded under the order passed by the learned Tribunal is too meager as compared to the original claim and as such, same deserves to be enhanced. It has been submitted that though the learned Tribunal has awarded certain amount under different heads, but the said amount and quantification thereof is quite inadequate and as such, it is against the principle of fair compensation. In fact, learned advocate Mr. Hakim has vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal has not properly construe the nexus of injuries vis-à-vis the death. In fact, learned advocate Mr. Hakim has vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal has not properly construe the nexus of injuries vis-à-vis the death. The death has occurred on account of serious injuries which have been sustained and it is quite clear from the evidence on record that prior to the accident, the deceased was not suffering from HIV, it might be during the treatment, on account blood transfusion such issue might have cropped up, but then, has submitted that the injuries have occurred solely on account of accident which took place. From the evidence on record, learned advocate Mr. Hakim has submitted that with a view to prove nexus with the accident and the death, medical papers were also submitted and in addition thereof, one Dr. Ashok Patel – Medical Practitioner was examined at Exhibit-51, and who clearly deposed that while transfusing blood, he was not symptomatic of having HIV positive. The deceased was admitted on 21.09.1992 and discharged on 17.12.1992 as per his version, but then, has submitted that lastly when he examined the patient i.e. deceased who was found to be normal, but it has been indicated that virus of aids can be caused on account of transfusion of blood and then has submitted that he has no knowledge about the criterion of compulsory HIV test at the relevant point of time and as such, keeping overall circumstances in mind and the documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal found that the deceased breathed his last after prolonged treatment of 17 months since several operations were undertaken. The learned Tribunal categorically found that in his opinion there is no proximate connection between the injuries and cause of death and as such, according to learned advocate Mr. Hakim, the learned Tribunal has not properly examined the material on record. 2.6. Apart from that learned advocate Mr. Hakim has submitted that the quantum which has been determined while awarding compensation is on very lower side without keeping the circumstances in mind the issue about his income at the relevant point of time. Hakim, the learned Tribunal has not properly examined the material on record. 2.6. Apart from that learned advocate Mr. Hakim has submitted that the quantum which has been determined while awarding compensation is on very lower side without keeping the circumstances in mind the issue about his income at the relevant point of time. As per the applicants’ say, the deceased was having agricultural income to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month and since he was tilling the land of his brothers as well, he was having a further amount of Rs.1,500/- per month, but then, for some interval, he was required to keep labourer at monthly salary of Rs.1,200/- since he physically could not supervise the land and as such, the learned Tribunal has erroneously considered the income of the deceased and as per the say of learned advocate Mr. Hakim the same is at much lower side. Learned advocate Mr. Hakim has further submitted that the judgment which has been relied upon and considered by the learned Tribunal is quite on the distinct facts and the same could not have been given any weightage. According to learned advocate Mr. Hakim, the injuries have resulted into death and same having been caused on account of accident which is proved beyond reasonable doubt, there appears to be an error in awarding the amount of compensation. 2.7. Learned advocate Mr. Hakim has then submitted the calculations and prima facie come to a conclusion that on the basis of income of Rs.1,500/- per month, if calculation is to be made by applying multiplier of 15 keeping the age of deceased as below 40 years, total addition deserves to be made in the amount which has already been quantified and awarded by the learned Tribunal. 3. As against this, Mr. Dakshesh Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf the Insurance Company has submitted that the deceased had died during the pendency of adjudication of the claim and has failed to indicate the exact cause of death. The claim has been drafted in a clever manner just to seek high amount of compensation and under the circumstances when the nexus has not been established, lump sum amount could not have been awarded. The claim has been drafted in a clever manner just to seek high amount of compensation and under the circumstances when the nexus has not been established, lump sum amount could not have been awarded. In respect of pain, shock and suffering, doctor’s version ought to have been substantiated, which is missing and the deceased has expired almost after a period of four and half years from the date of accident. The decision which is tried to be relied upon by the claimants as indicated in the order impugned, same has no applicability. It has been submitted that looking to the peculiar background of facts especially when the report dated 11.05.1995 is indicating the factum of HIV being caused to the deceased. At the best, on pain, shock and suffering, the compensation may be awarded, but not lump sum compensation at all. Be that as it may. The award which has been passed by the learned Tribunal, according to learned advocate Mr. Mehta is after due consideration of the material on record and after perusing the relevant oral as well as documentary evidence and that being so, a well reasoned order may not be disturbed in the interest of justice. 4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, it appears that the factum of accident is established before the learned Tribunal and for that purpose not only the deposition of deceased wife reflects at Exhibit-40 has been substantiated and in addition thereto brother Shaileshbhai who was standing at the relevant point of time on the spot had also been examined at Exhibit-50 and keeping the said testimony of both the witnesses and in view of the other documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that opponent no. 1 was driving the vehicle in question in rash and negligent manner and on account of such, the deceased sustained serious injuries. 4.1. Additionally, in addition to the documentary evidence about the treatment meted out to the deceased one Dr. Ashok Patel – Medical Practitioner has been examined at Exhibit-51 and considering the said testimony as well, it was opined by the learned Tribunal that the amount of compensation deserves to be awarded. 4.1. Additionally, in addition to the documentary evidence about the treatment meted out to the deceased one Dr. Ashok Patel – Medical Practitioner has been examined at Exhibit-51 and considering the said testimony as well, it was opined by the learned Tribunal that the amount of compensation deserves to be awarded. From the said evidence, it was noticed by the learned Tribunal that viral infection of aids can possibly be caused on account of transfusion of blood and as such, irrespective of such issue, reasonable amount deserves to be awarded and for that purpose, the learned Tribunal has analyzed the evidence led by the claimants. As indicated above, the deceased was having agricultural income of Rs.5,000/- per month and additionally was getting Rs.1,500/- per month from his brother since he was tilling the land of this brother as well. However, the medical bills were also produced to justify the claim on expenditure caused and further, it has been found that certain operations were also undertaken on the deceased and as such, keeping overall circumstances in mind, it appears that the amount which has been awarded of Rs.1,25,000/- is on the lower side and the same deserves to be enhanced. Though learned advocate Mr. Hakim has tried to indicate some more amount of compensation ought to have been awarded according to him, but the stand of learned advocate also appears to be on higher side and as such, same does not deserves to be considered in its entirety and as against this, learned advocate Mr. Mehta has tried to initially oppose the claim of enhancement, but then considering the totality of circumstances, has left it to the discretion of the Court. Hence, on the basis of the material on record, it appears to this Court that considering the assertion of the applicants at least claim of deceased being earning Rs.1,500/- per month deserves to be accepted and accordingly, on that basis applying the factors related to loss of dependency, loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenditure and the prospective rise, by applying multiplier of 15, it appears that the amount deserves to be enhanced then what has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. 5. 5. Considering the overall circumstances prevailing on record, if the Court considers the income of Rs.1,500/- per month of the deceased, then, 40% prospective rise deserves to be given, which comes to around Rs.600/- per month, which means income to be derived is Rs.2,100/- and out of them 1/3rd personal expenditure if to be deducted, i.e. an amount of Rs.1,400/- per month (1400 x 12), it comes to Rs.16,800/- and by applying multiplier of 15, since deceased was below the age of 40 years (approximately 34 years ), loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,52,000/-. 5.1. In addition thereto, loss of consortium for spouse and two minor children would come to Rs.1,20,000/- and so far as loss of estate and the funeral expenditure is concerned, in view of the settled proposition of law, Rs.15,000/- deserves to be awarded which comes to Rs.4,02,200/- to be payable to the applicants claimants out of which the amount which has already been awarded of Rs.1,25,000/- if to be deducted an amount of Rs.2,77,000/- deserves to be awarded by way of additional amount of compensation and as such, to that extent impugned award dated 02.11.2001 deserves to be suitably modified. The said additional amount of compensation as indicated above of Rs.2,77,000/- deserves to be paid not @ 9% per annum, but same shall be paid @ 6% per annum from the date of application till realization with proportionate cost and to the aforesaid extent the present, present appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Rest of the award is unaltered. 5.2. The aforesaid additional amount of compensation with interest as indicated above to be deposited before the concerned learned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order and upon such deposit, the applicants are at liberty to withdraw the same upon completion of proper formalities. 6. With the aforesaid observation, present appeal stands allowed in part.