1. By way of this appeal, the present appellant-original claimants has challenged the judgement and award dated 29.12.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Auxi.), Ahmedabad, in M.A.C.P. No.86 of 1991, whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.1,75,300/- to the claimant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of application till realization.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that in a vehicular accident one Ahmadbhai Jibhai Khokhar, appellant herein, sustained grievous injuries and therefore, he filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.86 of 1991 before the Tribunal for compensation. The learned tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after recording the evidence decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated hereinabove against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant-original claimant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal ought to have assessed the disability of the appellant to the extent of 65% for the body as a whole, as in view of the disability certificate, the appellant sustained 65% disability for the body as a whole. He further contended that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on lower side. Therefore, he prayed to allow this appeal.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents have opposed the appeal and have prayed to dismiss the same, as being without merit.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record as well as the judgement and award of the tribunal. I find that the Tribunal has committed error in assessing the disability of the appellant. As per the disability certificate at Exh.84, issued by Dr. Maniar, the appellant has sustained 65% disability for the body as a whole. Even as per the principle of Kessler, the disability comes to 65.7% for the body as a whole, and accordingly disability comes to Rs.32,85% which is rounded off to 33% disability. From the record it is clear that the Tribunal has not calculated the income of the appellant as the per ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Dixit and Another Vs. Balwant Yadav and Another reported in (1996) 3 SCC 179. There is no dispute about the income of the deceased, which is Rs. 2900/- per month. As per the aforesaid decision, the monthly income of the appellant comes to Rs. 4350/-. Since, the the appellant has sustained 33% disability, he is entitled to 33% amount from the his monthly income. Therefore, he is entitled to Rs.1435.50/- per month, under the head of future economic loss, and accordingly annually it comes to Rs. 17,227/- I also find that the Tribunal has committed an error in adopting the multiplier of 14. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2009(6) SCC, 121 it should be 15. If multiplier of 15 is adopted, the future loss of income come to Rs. 2,58,380/-, whereas the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,21,800/- under the said head.
6. In that view of the matter, the appellant shall be entitled for additional amount of Rs.1,36,580/-. Since, the appeal is restricted only to Rs.1,24,000/- the appellant is entitled to additional amount of Rs.1,24,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7 ½ per cent from the date of filing of the application till realization.
7. The judgement and award of the tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The decree be drawn accordingly. present appeal is partly allowed.
pawan [K.S.JHAVERI,J.]