1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 27/11/ 2001 rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.) District Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in M.A.C.P. No.182/1993. The Tribunal, pursuant to the impugned judgment and award, awarded Rs.1,02,375/- by way of compensation to the appellant- original claimant with running interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the afore-mentioned claim petition till the realization of the amount with proportionate costs thereon. The Tribunal directed the respondents herein, who were original opponents in the said claim petition, to pay aforesaid amount of compensation together with interest and costs to the appellant- original claimant jointly and/or severally. The original claimant felt that the amount awarded by way of compensation is on a very lower side and, therefore, preferred this appeal for enhancement of said amount of compensation.
2. As per the case of the appellant- claimant, the vehicular accident occurred on 08/01/1993 at about 8:00 O'clock in the morning when he was going on a road leading to Himmatnagar Municipality Building, at that time, one auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.GQO-6124 came from behind which was driven by the opponent no.1 rashly and negligently and dashed the said rickshaw with the claimant and the claimant sustained serious bodily injuries. The rickshaw was owned by opponent no.2 and insured with opponent no.3 Insurance Company. It was his case that at the time of accident, the appellant was serving as an Assistant in District Panchayat, Sabarkantha and was drawing Rs.4,250/- by way of monthly salary. That the injuries sustained by the appellant resulted into permanent bodily disability affecting earning capacity. The appellant- claimant therefore filed aforementioned claim petition initially claiming Rs.1,50,000/- by way of compensation, but by way of amendment, the claimant claimed Rs.2,00,000/- by way of compensation.
3. Before the claim tribunal, the appellant- claimant was examined. The appellant produced certain documentary evidences like F.I.R. and panchnama as well as medical papers. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, ultimately, came to the conclusion that the appellant successfully proved the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the rickshaw by its driver - the opponent no.1. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant- claimant was entitled to recover Rs.15,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering and Rs.12,750/- by way of actual loss of income for three months (Rs.4,250/- X 3). The Tribunal further awarded Rs.13,575/- under the head of medical expenses, treatment charges etc. and Rs.5,000/- under the head of transportation charges etc., Rs.1,500/- towards attendant charges and Rs.2,000/- for rich diet etc. About the future loss of income, relying upon the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that even after the accident, the service of the appellant-claimant continued and as a matter of fact, his income came to be increased. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal relied upon the case of 'State of Gujarat Vs. Somabhai Dhulabhai and Others' reported in 1993 (2) GLH 714 and observed that the disability sustained by the appellant did not accrue resulting economic loss. However, the loss of earning capacity on account of physical disability would be felt when the injured would, after retirement seek some private employment. Accordingly, the multiplier of 5 years came to be adopted. Considering the fact that the disability came to be assessed at 21%, the Tribunal considered that out of monthly income of Rs.4,250/- and considering the disability at 21%, the monthly loss comes to Rs.892=50ps. and the annual loss comes to Rs.10,710/-. Applying the multiplier of 5 years, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant-claimant was entitled to recover Rs.53,550/- (Rs.10,710/- X 5) under the head of loss to the future income. Ultimately, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant- claimant was entitled to recover Rs.1,02,375/- by way of compensation.
4. Mr. M.R. Maulavi learned advocate for Mr. Shakeel Qureshi learned advocate for the appellant- claimant at the outset submitted that the Tribunal committed serious error while considering only the multiplier of 5 years, when admittedly, at the time of accident, the appellant was aged about 44 years. It is, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal should have applied appropriate multiplier. Mr. Maulavi learned advocate further submitted that as per the evidence on record and more particularly, as per deposition of the appellant- claimant, he could not attend his service for 6 months and he was required to take leave for 6 months and, therefore, the Tribunal should have awarded actual loss of income for the period of 6 months but the Tribunal only awarded the compensation under this head for the period of 3 months.
4.1 Mr. Maulavi learned advocate for the appellant- claimant, therefore, submitted that on the aforementioned two counts, the appeal may be allowed and the amount of compensation may be appropriately enhanced.
5. Mr. Nachiket Mehta learned advocate for Ms. Megha Jani learned advocate for the respondent no.3 Insurance Company at the outset supported the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal and submitted that considering the overall evidence on record, when it was established that the disability sustained by the appellant did not actually result in economic loss to the appellant, the Tribunal rightly applied multiplier of 5 years considering the ratio laid down by this Court in Somabhai Dhulabhai's case (Supra). He further submitted that about the actual loss of income, the Tribunal rightly took into consideration the actual loss of income for 3 months as in the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has categorically observed while dealing with the aspect of actual loss of income that as per the leave certificate Exh.43, the appellant- claimant was on leave from 08/01/1993 (the date of accident) to till 08/04/1993 which comes to 3 months and therefore, the Tribunal did not commit any error. It is submitted that even otherwise considering the medical evidence on record, the Tribunal has rightly observed that the appellant was required to take rest for the period of 90 days. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal may be dismissed.
6. I have considered the record and proceedings in context with the submissions made by the either side.
7. As observed above, the instant appeal is now confined only on two issues viz. whether the Tribunal committed any error while applying multiplier of 5 years? The second issue is - as to whether the Tribunal committed any error while calculating the compensation under the head of actual loss of income for the period of 3 months only?
8. Considering the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal, so also, considering the relevant papers, it transpires that at the time of accident, the appellant- claimant was serving in District Panchayat and at that time, he was aged about 44 years. As observed by the Tribunal and as revealed from the relevant papers, though the injuries sustained by the appellant resulted into functional bodily disability at 21% but despite this, his service with the District Panchayat continued and gradually, his income was increased. The Tribunal, therefore, relied upon Somabhai Dhulabhai's case (Supra) wherein, under the identical situation, this Court observed that the disability sustained by the injured claimant did not actually result in economic loss. This court observed that however loss of earning capacity on account of physical disability would be felt when the injured would, after the retirement, seek some private employment. In the aforesaid background, this Court in Somabhai Dhulabhai's case (Supra) considered the multiplier of 5 years as appropriate multiplier. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that no error appears to have been committed by the Tribunal while awarding multiplier of 5 years in this matter.
9. About actual loss of income, considering the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal so also considering the relevant papers, it appears that the appellant on account of the accident and resultant injuries sustained by him, proceeded on leave from 08/01/1993 (the date of accident) to 08/04/1993 which period comes to about 3 months. Over and above this, the Tribunal took into consideration medical evidence on record and came to the conclusion that because of the injuries, the appellant was required to take rest for 3 months. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded Rs.12,750/- under the head of actual loss of income (Rs.4,250/- X 3). Again it appears that no error appears to have been committed by the Tribunal while awarding the compensation under this head.
10. Nothing more is submitted on behalf of appellant and as discussed above, the Tribunal did not commit any error while granting the compensation under the head of actual loss of income or while applying the multiplier of 5 years. Consequently, there does not appear that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal can be considered to be on lower side. Resultantly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
11. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal stands dismissed.
abv/g (J.C. Upadhyaya)