1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 30.10.2001 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.III), Nadiad ( for short 'the Tribunal') order below Exh. 1 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 33 of 2000 wherein the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,24,000/ along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from date of main claim petition till deposit.
2.0 On 29.02.2000 when claimant was travelling in S.T. Bus No. GJ 18V 2275 from Ahmedabad to Kjehda, the driver of the appellant was driving the bus in excessive speed and rashly and negligently on wrong side and dashed with the truck as a result of which the claimant received serious injuries. He therefore, filed claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein the aforesaid award came to be filed which is challenged in the present appeal.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred by not considering aspect of negligence as it was not a question of dispute that the respondent while sitting in the bus has put his hand outside the window which caused accident and also in clear violations of instructions which is put in each bus of Corporation prohibits the passenger not to put any part of the body outside the window; that the learned Tribunal has committed by applying Schedule I and II of the Motor Vehicle Act; that learned Tribunal committed error in deciding the aspect of the loss of earning capacity and that the multiplier adopted by the learned Tribunal is on higher side.
4.0 As a result of hearing and perusal of the documents on record, it is found that the learned Tribunal in absence of any cogent evidence regarding the income of the claimant, has assessed the notional income of Rs. 15, 000/ per annum.
4.1 According to Second Schedule given in Motor Vehicles Act in column No.4, General Damages in case of injuries and disabilities (i) pain and sufferings (a) Grievous Injuries Rs. 5000/ (ii) Medical expenses, actual expenses incurred supported by Bills/ vouchers but not exceeding as one time payment Rs. 15, 000/. But the claimant has not produced any medical bills and therefore, he is not entitled to get any amount under this head.
5.0 For disability in nonfatal accidents: the following compensation shall be payable in case of disability to the victim arising out of nonfatal accidents. Loss of income if any for actual period of disablement not exceeding fiftytwo weeks. Plus either of the following: (a) In case of permanent total disablement the amount payable shall be arrived at by multiplying the annual loss of income by the multiplier applicable to the age on the date of determining the compensation or (b) in case of permanent partial disablement such percentage of compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as specified under item (a) above. Injuries deemed to result in permanent total Disablement/Permanent Partial Disablement and percentage of loss of earning capacity shall be as per Schedule I under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. According to Schedule I, Para 2 in which list of injuries deemed to result in permanent partial disablement is given in the serial No.2, it is mentioned that amputation below shoulder with stump less than 8” ( 20. 32 cms.) from tip of acromion.
5.1 In the present case, the claimant has filed application under Section 163A of the Act. Considering the nature of the injuries, the claimant could not do work for atleast 1 years because of coming out of mental shock of amputation of his right hand, and therefore, the Tribunal has held that the claimant is entitled to actual loss for 52 weeks i.e. Rs. 15,000/. The future loss of income is calculated by the Tribunal is Rs.1200/ which is just and proper. Considering the age of 34 years and 9 months the Tribunal has rightly adopted multiplier of 17 years and thereby awarded Rs. 20, 400/ towards future loss of income.
6.0 Rs. 15, 000/ was awarded towards actual loss of income and Rs.
5000/ towards pain, shock and suffering. The amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper.
7.0 The appellant could not persuade this Court to take a different view of the matter. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal.
8.0 In the premises aforesaid I do not find any merits in the appeal.
The same is therefore dismissed.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*