1 The appellant, original claimant, has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement, against the judgment and award dated 19th April 2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Junagadh, in M.A.C. Petition No.280 of 1990, whereby, the Tribunal awarded Rs.24,100/ with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization against the opponents jointly and severally. 2. The accident in question took place on 3.3.1990 on Monia Vasavadar road where Spark Motorcycle No. GUJ5568 and Riksha No. GTW 9101 dashed with each other; claimant was injured and taken to Visavadar primary hospital and treated by an Orthopaedic Surgeon.
3 Considering the nature of injuries and fractures on both hands and at right leg and other injuries, and hospitalization of injured for 2025 days, medical certificate, disability of 11.5% was considered and multiplier of 15 was applied by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also awarded amounts on other heads of pain, shock and suffering and expenses for medical treatment, attending charges, and total amount of Rs.24,100/ was awarded with 12% interest per annum to the claimant.
4 Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal has erred in arriving at the conclusion that the claimant was also 50% negligence and, further, in spite of medical certificate given by the Medical Experts which reveals 23% disability, the Tribunal determined and assessed 11.5% disability and even the aspects of earning capacity and actual income of the claimant were not considered by the Tribunal in proper perspective and, therefore, to the above extent, the award of the Tribunal needs to be modified and compensation may be paid accordingly.
5 Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would contend that the award passed by the Tribunal is based on the material on record and the findings are based on proper reasoning and the compensation is just and proper in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court which does not require any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed accordingly.
6 Upon considering rival submissions and on perusal of the record and the impugned judgment, in my view, the award of the Tribunal, basically, needs to be modified and corrected by considering the following aspects:
[i] In absence of any particulars about income, determination of income by the Tribunal at Rs.1380/per year does not require any disturbance. However, multiplier of 18 is required to be applied as per law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. DTC, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.
[ii] Therefore, applying 18 multiplier with annual income of Rs.1380/, the claimant is entitled to Rs.24,840/ under the head of “future economic loss”. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.19,200/ under the head of “future economic loss” with interest and proportionate cost to the claimant which is now enhanced to Rs.24,840/. The net amount [Rs.24,840/ minus Rs.19,200/] is Rs.5640/. Again, aforesaid amount of difference of additional compensation of Rs.5640/ is deducted by 50% on account of his own negligence, as held by the Tribunal, it would come to Rs.2820/. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of actual loss of income. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, five months loss of actual income is required to be awarded which comes to Rs.5000/. Thus, the claimants are entitled to additional amount of compensation of Rs.7820/ with 9% interest per annum with proportionate cost from the date of claim petition till realization. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards other heads are not disturbed.
9. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 19th April 2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Junagadh, in M.A.C. Petition No.280 of 1990 is modified to the aforesaid extent.
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.) (swamy)