JUDGMENT : MAULIK J.SHELAT, J. 1. The present appeal is filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act (herein after referred to as ‘the MV Act’) by the original opponents against judgement and award dated 14.12.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxilliary), Mahesana in Motor Accident Claim Petition (MACP) No. 4 of 2006. Parties will be referred as per their original status. 2. Short facts: 2.1 On 23.02.2005 one Janakbhai was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ-5-BL-2864 on Rander Road Surat. At that point of time, one Indica Car bearing registration No. GJ-5-CA-4048 driven by opponent No.1 dashed with rear side of motorcycle. 2.2 The injured claimant Janakbhai has sustained injuries on his head and eyes and upper body parts. The injured claimant was hospitalized for quite long time and ultimately has sustained 85% disability on body as a whole. 2.3 The injured claimant has filed MACP No. 4 of 2006 under Section 166 of the MV Act, through his next friend i.e. Harshadbhai Jayantibhai Joshi, who happens to be the brother of the injured claimant against driver and owner of Indica car for compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. The summons of claim petition was served upon opponents and it appears that driver of Indica car was appeared through his lawyer whereas, opponent No.2 - owner of the car, neither appeared in person nor through his lawyer. Nonetheless, none of the opponents have chosen to file respective written statement. Thereby, not contested the claim petition and also not cross-examined the claimant. 2.4 FIR came to be registered against driver of Indica car and panchnama suggests the fact that after dashing motorcycle of the claimant, driver of the car ran away from scene of accident. After appreciating evidence on record the tribunal has found driver of Indica car 90% negligent, whereas driver of motorcycle was held 10% negligent for accident. 2.5 The tribunal has considered aspect of granting compensation by taking into consideration that injured claimant was working in Dharmanandan Diamond at Surat and used to earn Rs.68,008/- per anum, which was confirmed from Income Tax Form No. 16A issued by his employer i.e. Dharmanandan Diamond, Surat. Thereby, it has considered monthly income of Rs.8000/- of injured claimant for computing future loss of income. Thereby, it has considered monthly income of Rs.8000/- of injured claimant for computing future loss of income. After taking into account age, injury, period of hospitalisation of injured claimant, in all Rs.18,68,000 was awarded by the tribunal with 7.5 % interest from the date of claim petition till its realisation. 2.6 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid judgement and award, original opponents i.e. driver and owner of the Indica car have preferred the present appeal. 3. Submissions of appellant: 3.1 Learned advocate Mr.Utpal Panchal appearing for the appellant would submit that appellants were under bonafide impression that the lawyer engaged by them would defend the claim petition and intimate its outcome to the appellants - original opponents. But due to not getting any information from the lawyer concerned, original opponents are now faced with impugned award. 3.2 According to his submission, this Court may grant one opportunity to opponents to defend the claim petition in accordance with law. He would submit that the injured claimant was at fault. As the accident had taken place in busy area, the speed of the car was not that high, which cause several injuries to the claimant and to that extent judgement and award deciding the interse negligence requires to be interfered with and both drivers are required to be equally held liable for the accident. 3.3 He would further submit that considering the income of injured claimant i.e. Rs.68,088/- the tribunal has committed gross error in considering monthly income of the injured claimant at the rate of Rs.8000/- which is on higher side and request this Court to interfere with the impugned award. 3.4 He would further submit that Tribunal has granted more than just compensation to the claimant, so according to his submissions, order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous one and compensation which is granted is unjust and unreasonable. Thus, he prayed this Court to allow the present appeal. 4. Submissions of respondent 4.1 Per Contra, learned advocate Mr. Kaash K. Thakkar for learned advocate Mr. Viral K. Shah appearing for original claimants would submit that when opponents were duly served with the notice of the tribunal and having engaged an advocate, later on they cannot find fault with the tribunal. 4. Submissions of respondent 4.1 Per Contra, learned advocate Mr. Kaash K. Thakkar for learned advocate Mr. Viral K. Shah appearing for original claimants would submit that when opponents were duly served with the notice of the tribunal and having engaged an advocate, later on they cannot find fault with the tribunal. He would further submit that it was the duty of opponents to check the status of claim petition and to get update of status of claim petition from the lawyer, which was not done by them, then no further opportunity may be granted to such litigants, who have remained silent till final award was passed by the tribunal. 4.2 He would further submit that injured claimant had sustained very serious injuries resulting into permanent disability of 85% for a body as a whole but it was total disablement and functional loss was 100%, as claimant was not able to do any work past accident. 4.3 He would further submit that tribunal has not considered prospective income while considering future loss of income and that tribunal has not committed any error by considering income of injured claimant to Rs.8000/- per month. He would further submit that considering the nature of disability, period of hospitalization and long duration of treatment till the claimant died, megare amount has been awarded by the tribunal under the head of non-pecuniary damages i.e. pain, shock and suffering, special diet, transportation, attendant etc. Moreover, no amount is awarded by the tribunal under the head of loss of enjoyment of life. So according to him, no error has been committed by the Tribunal in passing impugned award. 5. Point for determination 5.1 Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, any error committed by the Tribunal by adjudicating the petition? 6. Findings of the Court 6.1 At the outset, it is required to be observed that despite service of notice of claim petition, none of the opponents have filed their written statement nor participated in the trial. On perusal of record, it can be seen that opponent No.1 driver has engaged his lawyer and after filing his Vakalatnama, he has done nothing in the matter. There is nothing on record to suggest that at given point of time, opponent has inquired from his lawyer about status of claim petition and for its outcome. On perusal of record, it can be seen that opponent No.1 driver has engaged his lawyer and after filing his Vakalatnama, he has done nothing in the matter. There is nothing on record to suggest that at given point of time, opponent has inquired from his lawyer about status of claim petition and for its outcome. It was the duty of opponents to appear and contest a claim petition if so desire, but having chosen not to appear and contest the claim petition, after passing the award by the tribunal, opponents cannot be allowed to blame anyone except themselves. It is by-now well settled that once party has received notice / summons from the Court, then it is incumbent upon such litigant to appear and contest the proceedings failing which, Court may pass order against such litigant. 6.2 It is also well settled that when litigant has engaged any lawyer such litigant cannot be allowed to blame the lawyer for either his non-appearance or non-submission of pleadings. A litigant is required to inquire from the lawyer at every stage of proceedings and the litigant who remained indolent during course of proceedings cannot be allowed to ask for setting aside the order on mere asking without showing any sufficient cause or reason for their non appearance before the tribunal. 6.3 In the present case, we have not found any sufficient reason or the cause for the opponent not to appear before the Tribunal and contest the claim petition. So considering above stated facts and position of law as well as claim petition is of the Year 2006, this Court would not think it appropriate to quash the impugned judgement and award and reject the request of the opponents to remand the matter back to the tribunal. 6.4 So far as issue of negligence is concerned, learned Tribunal has elaborately discussed oral and documentary evidence on record not controverted by the opponents. The driver of the car has not remained present to controvert allegations of his soul negligence in causing the accident, then as per settle legal position an adverse inference can be drawn against him. Moreover as can be seen from the panchanama that after causing accident, driver of the car ran away from the scene of accident. This act of driver of car itself shows his negligence. Moreover as can be seen from the panchanama that after causing accident, driver of the car ran away from the scene of accident. This act of driver of car itself shows his negligence. In absence of any contrary evidence on record we are unable to interfere with findings so recorded by the Tribunal in relation to negligence of driver of car. 6.5 It is true that injured claimant was drawing annual salary income of Rs.68,008/- from his employer which is confirmed from the income tax Form No. 16, but at the same time Tribunal has not considered any future rise of income on the actual income of claimant, at the time of accident which is required to be considered as per law laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in Pappu Deo Yadav. Vs. Nareshkumar reported in 2022 (13) SCC 790 , wherein it has been held as under:- “[7] Two questions arise for consideration: one, whether in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects too; and two, the extent of disability. On the first question, the High Court no doubt, is technically correct in holding that Pranay Sethi (Supra n.2) involved assessment of compensation in a case where the victim died. However, it went wrong in saying that later, the three-judge bench decision in Jagdish (Supra n.3) was not binding, but rather that the subsequent decision in Anant (Supra n.6) to the extent that it did not award compensation for future prospects, was binding. This court is of the opinion that there was no justification for the High Court to have read the previous rulings of this court, to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading of Pranay Sethi (Supra n.2) is illogical, because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases - and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim's death. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx [12] In view of the above decisive rulings of this court, the High Court clearly erred in holding that compensation for loss of future prospects could not be awarded. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx [12] In view of the above decisive rulings of this court, the High Court clearly erred in holding that compensation for loss of future prospects could not be awarded. In addition to loss of future earnings (based on a determination of the income at the time of accident), the appellant is also entitled to compensation for loss of future prospects, @ 40% (following the Pranay Sethi principle).” 6.6 In view of the aforesaid law, if we add 40% rise of income as claimant was 38 years old at the time of accident then it comes to Rs.96000/- i.e. Rs.8000/- per month which is considered by the tribunal for awarding future loss of income. As such, considering the nature of injury sustained, period of hospitalization, future treatment and he was remained in bed for quite long time, tribunal has awarded very megare amount under other heads. But we are not discussing further on it in absence of any cross-appeal or cross-objection by the claimant. None the less, while assessing the compensation which is to be awarded under the Motor Vehicle Act, this Court cannot loss site of principle of granting just compensation to the road accident victims. 6.7 Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no scope of reduction in compensation. 7. Conclusion: 7.1 In view of above, we are unable to accept any of the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellants as there is no error committed by the tribunal while adjudicating claim petition filed by the injured claimant. 7.2 The appeal being meritless requires to be dismissed. Hence, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 7.3 Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned tribunal forthwith.