1. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 16.06.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Panchmahals in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 222/95 so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 1,55,000/-as compensation with interest and costs.
2. It is the case of the appellant that on 06.02.1994 while the appellant was riding a motorcycle, an S.T. bus being driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and dashed against the motorcycle as result of which the appellant sustained injuries and the motorcycle also got damaged. The appellant therefore filed claim petition for compensation. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
3. Mr. M.R.M Hakim, learned advocate appearing for Mr.
M.T.M. Hakim for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the appellant. He submitted that the disability assessed by the Tribunal is on lower side and contrary to evidence on record. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the disability of the whole body at 30% and accordingly ought to have awarded compensation. Mr. Hakim further submitted that the multiplier adopted is on lower side. He has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121.
4. Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the respondent supported the award of the Tribunal and submitted that the same does not call for any interference by this Court. She submitted that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the appellant and the disability sustained considering the evidence on record. However, learned advocate for the respondent could not controvert the issue of multiplier.
4. This Court heard the contentions advanced by the appellant and perused the papers on record. The Tribunal has gone through the documentary evidence on record and come to the conclusion that the accident happened on account of the sole negligence of the opponent no. 1. No interference is called for regarding the same.
5. As far as the aspect of income is concerned, it is clear that the Tribunal has considered the medical certificate at Ex. 43 and the disability certificate at Ex. 44. Apart from that the Tribunal has also considered the driving licence of the appellant, the case papers and other treatment papers produced at Exs. 34 to 50. No other documentary evidence is produced by the other side. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 3000/-. In the relevant year, income over Rs. 35000/- per annum was the taxable income. The Tribunal has infact assessed Rs. 36000/- as the income. The same is just and proper.
5.1 Similarly, as far as disability is concerned, the same also does not call for any interference by this Court. One Dr. Vijay had examined the appellant and categorically stated that the appellant had sustained 40% injury and body as a whole 15%. The Tribunal has proceeded with 20% disability and the same is just and proper. Therefore the Tribunal has rightly arrived at Rs. 7200/- as the loss of income per annum.
5.2 However, it appears that the multiplier of 15 adopted by the Tribunal is on lower side. In the case of Sarla Verma & Ors (supra) 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.”
5.3 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 claimants, the multiplier of 15 awarded in the present case is on lower side. The just and proper multiplier would be 18. The income assessed is just and proper. Therefore the future loss of income would come to Rs. 1,29,600/- (Rs.7200 x 18). The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 1,08,000/- under the said head and therefore an additional amount of Rs. 21,600/- is required to be awarded.
6. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 21,600/- 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//