1 By way of filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellant – original claimant has challenged the judgment and order dated 8th June 2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux-1), Kachchh at Bhuj in MAC Petition No.221 of 2005 whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant.
2 The short facts of the present appeal are that on the date of the incident i.e. on 17th December 2004 the claimant was driving Luxury Bus No.GJ.12.T.4403 for going to Ahmedabad from Bhuj. It is his case that he was driving the bus on the correct side of the road and in a moderate speed and when they reached the village Dhamak on Dhrangadhra-Surendranagar Highway at about 4 AM a public carrier bearing No.GJ.12.V.7899 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the bus due to which he sustained serious injuries. He was admitted in Civil Hospital at Surendranagar initially and thereafter was shifted to VS Hospital, Ahmedabad. He therefore filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10 lakhs.
3 The Tribunal has considered the income of the claimant at Rs.3000 per month. The functional disability was arrived at at 42.5% and therefore the future loss was considered as Rs.15,300 per annum. As the appellant was 25 years old, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 18 as per Second Schedule and arrived at Rs.275,400 towards future economic loss. The Tribunal has also awarded the following sums under different heads:
● Pain, Shock and Suffering Rs. 5,000
● Expenses on medical treatment Rs 15,000
● Future loss of income Rs.2,75,400
● Actual loss of income Rs. 7,650 Total Rs.3,03,050
4 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the certificate at Exhibit 36 where the disability of the appellant was stated to be 85% and that the appellant could not drive the vehicle due to the injury sustained by him. He further contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the loss to the extent of 15,300 per annum and it should have been considered as Rs.36,000 and therefore the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.6,48,000 as the future economic loss.
5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. If the claimant wanted to get compensation under 100% functional disability, he ought to have claimed compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act and not under the Motor Vehicles Act. Considering the reasoning of the learned Tribunal, I am of the view that no interference is called for. Taking into consideration the disability and other factors and age factor the amount awarded is just and proper and no interference is called for. The appeal is devoid of any merits. No interference is called for. Hence, dismissed.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd