The only contention advanced before us, in this appeal, under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act for short) on behalf of the appellant-original defendant No.3, Insurance Company is with regard to the quantification of damages awarded by the Tribunal to respondent No.1, original claimant, injured, to the extent of Rs.4,39,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum by the MAC Tribunal (Aux.), Rajkot, by its judgment and award dated 23.5.2000, in MACP No.457/96.
In order to appreciate the sole contention agitated before us, the copies of evidence relied on by the original claimant and also by the Tribunal were placed for our examination. We have, threadbare, gone through the copies of the evidence. We have also heard the learned advocate for the appellant.
On 21.1.96, at about 9.30 p.m., original claimant Rajeshkumar, who was sitting as a pillion rider of a moped, known as Luna, which was driven by one Girish, was preceding towards Haribhai Hall on Yagnik Road, at Rajkot. At that time, one autorikshaw No.GRS-4371 driven by respondent No.2, original opponent No.1, came with excessive speed and dashed from behind the Luna, as a result of which, driver Girish and claimant Rajesh, were thrown off the vehicle and they sustained serious injuries of varying gravity on different parts of their anatomy. On this premise, both the injured persons filed claim petitions before MACT (Aux.), Rajkot. Pillion rider, injured Rajesh, respondent No.1 in this appeal, filed Claim Case No.457/96, whereas, injured Girish, who was driving the moped filed Claim case No.612/96.
Upon assessment of the evidence, the Tribunal by its common judgment and award dated 23.5.2000, partly, allowed the claim cases. Pillion rider, Rajesh, is awarded under different heads an amount of Rs.4,39,000. Since no appeal is filed against the amount of compensation awarded to Girish, who was driving the Luna, who filed MACP No.612/96, and who was awarded an amount of Rs.51,250/-, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant facts in so far as the amount of compensation awarded to the original claimant in Claim Case No.457/96 is concerned.
The Tribunal has placed reliance, mainly, on the evidence of claimant and the evidence of Dr.Nimish Trivedi who is a neuro-surgeon. He has issued certificate showing permanent partial disablement produced at Ex.40. The claimant was, initially taken to the Government hospital from where he was shifted to Ashok Gondhiya Hospital, where he was kept as an indoor patient. The claimant had sustained serious injuries on his head, right eye, left hand and left leg. During the course of his treatment as an indoor patient, several operations were performed. Thereafter, he was attending the hospital as an outdoor patient for follow up treatment. He was also examined by Dr.Doshi, Ophthalmic Surgeon. The claimant was attended by his relatives during the course of his treatment. The claimant, during the long period of treatment, as stated in his evidence at Ex.36, was required to spent almost an amount of Rs.1 lac for medical treatment, special diet, transport charges, etc. The claimant was doing labour work of preparing bangles and he was earning Rs.2,000 per month. Unfortunately, on account of the accident, he has lost vision in his right eye. His face is deformed. He has also sustained permanent partial disablement in the left hand. His memory is also affected to an extent. He has headache, time and again, after the accident on account of the injuries. He finds difficulty in coherent speech. He has relied on the medical evidence of Dr.Trivedi, who has assessed the permanent partial disablement sustained by the claimant. At the time of accident, the claimant was 20 years of old and he was unmarried. Obviously, his matrimonial prospects are vitally affected on account of loss of vision in one eye and other permanent partial disablement in left hand, injury on head and difficulty in speech.
It is in the above context, we are required to consider as to whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, in any way, could be said to be excessive or exorbitant requiring our interference at the stage of admission in so far as the impugned award is concerned. The Tribunal has awarded a consolidated sum of Rs.4,39,000/-. The break-up of which is as follows:
Rs. 35,000Non pecuniary loss (pain, shock and suffering) Rs. 36,000Actual loss of income.
Rs. 70,000Medical expenses and treatment charges. Rs. 10,000Special diet, transportation charges attendant charges etc. Rs.2,88,000Future loss of income.
--------------
Rs.4,39,000Total amount of compensation.
-------------
The amount of Rs.2,88,000/- awarded under the head of future loss of income is assailed by the learned advocate for the appellant, at the time of hearing of appeal.
After having taken into consideration the age, type of work, avocation, the extent of disablement and the organs of the anatomy of the claimant permanently affected on account of the injuries, the assessment of amount of compensation under the head of future loss of income at Rs.2,88,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be in any way excessive or on a higher side. The Tribunal has, elaborately, dealt with this aspect in para 12 of the impugned judgment and award and various factors are considered. We are, fully, satisfied that the assessment made by the Tribunal at Rs.2,88,000/- by way of compensation under the head of future loss of income is justified. The Tribunal has taken future monthly loss of income at Rs.1500/-. The said amount is assessed being the 75 per cent of the income, the claimant was getting at the time of accident. The claimant was earning an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month at the time of accident and he has sustained permanent partial disablement to the extent of 75 per cent of the body, as a whole. The Tribunal, therefore, assessed the annual loss at Rs.1500 x 12 = Rs.18,000/-. Since the claimant was aged 20 years at the time of accident, 16 multiplier was applied and therefore, Rs.18,000 x 16 = Rs.2,88,000/was arrived at under the head of future loss of earning. With due respect to the Tribunal, this amount does not represent the correct future economic loss. The Tribunal has lost sight of the prospective earnings of the claimant. The assessment is based only on the current income which the deceased was earning at the time of accident. It is a celebrated proposition of law that in order to arrive at just and reasonable amount of compensation to be awarded even under the head of loss of future earnings, the Tribunal is obliged to consider as to what was the income of the claimant at the time when the accident occurred and what he would have earned had he remained active in life and had he not sustained permanent partial disablement. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has not considered the future prospective earnings even while considering the amount of compensation under the head of loss of earning in future. Be that as it may, the amount awarded is on a lower side and, therefore, the grievance against this amount is meritless.
The amount of compensation awarded under the head of non-pecuniary loss is, in our opinion, also meagre. The claimant sustained permanent partial disablement to the extent of 75 per cent. The claimant is a young man, who lost vision in his right eye. He has sustained permanent partial disablement in left hand, left leg and has also problem in speech. Not only that, even the faculty of understanding is impaired to some extent. In a case like the one hand, where a young unmarried man whose matrimonial chances is adversely, affected on the account of the permanent partial disablement, an amount of Rs.35,000/- is far less. The amount of compensation under other heads are also quite justified and reasonable. In our opinion, therefore, this appeal is meritless and is required to be rejected at the threshold. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
No order in the Civil Application.
(J.N.Bhatt, J.) (K.M.Mehta, J.) (vjn)