1. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 17.06.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Jamnagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 396 of 1992 so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 1,96,400/- as compensation with interest and costs.
2. It is the case of the appellant that on 26.02.1992 while the appellant was travelling in a Chhakda rickshaw bearing registration No. GTP 7980, a tractor which was being driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner dashed with the rickshaw as a result of which appellant sustained injuries. The appellant therefore filed claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,75,000. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
3. Mr. Mehul Shah, learned advocate appearing for Ms. Jani for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that the appellant's monthly income is only Rs. 1200/-. He submitted that having regard to the fact that the appellant was only 30 years old the Tribunal ought to have taken prospective income into account. He also submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pain, shock and suffering is on lower side. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded atleast Rs. 100000/- under the said head considering the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2011(12) SCALE 297. Mr. Shah also submitted that the Tribunal failed to award adequate amount under the head of actual loss of income.
4. Before proceeding further it is required to be noted that the issues with regard to income and deduction by way of personal expenses are already settled by the decisions of Apex Court. In the case of Smt Sarla Dixit & Anr Vs. Balwant Yadav & Ors, reported in 1996 AIR 1274 (=1996 SCC (3) 179) it is held as under:
“... Adopting the same scientific yardstick as laid down in the aforesaid judgement, the computation of compensation in the present case can almost be subjected to a well settled mathematical formula. Deceased in the present case, as seen above, was earning gross salary of Rs.1,543/- per month. Rounding it upto figure of Rs.1,500/- and keeping in view all the future prospects which the deceased had in stable military service in the light of his brilliant academic record and performance in the military service spread over 7 years, and also keeping in view the other imponderables like accidental death while discharging military duties and the hazards of military service, it will not be unreasonable to predicate that his gross monthly income would have shot up to at least double than what he was earning at the time of his death, i.e. upto Rs.3,000/- per month had he survived in life and had successfully completed his future military career till the time of superannuation. The average future monthly income could be arrived at by adding the actual gross income at the time of death, namely, Rs.1,500/- per month to the maximum whichhe would have otherwise got had he not died a premature death, i.e. Rs.3,000/- per month and dividing that figure by two. Thus the average gross monthly income spread over his entire future career, had it been available, would work out to Rs.4,500/- divided by 2, i.e. Rs.2,200/-. Rs.2,200/- per month would have been the gross monthly average income available to the family fo the deceased had he survived as a bread winner ”
5. In the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 it is held as under:
“The multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M- 17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years and M- 13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M- 9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”
6. Thus considering the formula laid down in the case of Smt. Sarla Dixit (supra) the income of the deceased is to be calculated. In the present case the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1200/-. Nothing is pointed out to take a different figure in that regard. The said income should be doubled and actual gross income should be added. By doubling, the amount would come to Rs. 2400/- and by adding current income of Rs. 1200/- it would come to Rs. 3600/-. Average monthly income can be derived by dividing the same by 2. Therefore the average income would come to Rs.1800/- per month and Rs. 21600/- per annum. Considering disability of 60%, the loss of income comes to Rs. 12960/-.
7. As per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), I am of the view that, looking to the age of the claimant, the multiplier of 15 awarded in the present case is on lower side. The just and proper multiplier would be 17. Therefore the future loss of income would come to Rs. 2,20,320/- (Rs.12960 x 17). The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 151200/- under this head. Therefore an additional amount of Rs. 69120/- is required to be awarded under this head.
8. As regards the rest of the awards under various heads, the amount awarded under the head of pain, shock and suffering is on lower side. However, as no documentary evidence regarding hospitalization and medical records is produced, the appellants cannot claim benefit of the decision of the Apex Court as cited hereinabove. Accordingly, Rs. 5000/- is required to be awarded in addition to the amount already awarded. Therefore the appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 74120/- which is rounded off to Rs. 74200/- by way of compensation.
9. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 74,200/- alongwith interest at 7.5% from the date of application till realisation. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//