1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 11.12.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Surendranagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 782 of 1993 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.171280/ with running interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realization.
2.0 On 20.08.1993 at about 10.45 a.m. the claimant was travelling in luxury bus bearing registration No. GJ 3T 9700 from Rajkot to Ahmedabad as passenger. When the bus reached near Village Chaniya, at that time the driver of the luxury bus drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with an excessive speed. A truck bearing registration No. GJ3T 123 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and collied with each other. As a result of which, the claimant received serious injuries. She took prolonger treatment. She therefore, filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal wherein the aforesaid award came to be passed. This appeal is at the instance of claimant for the enhancement of compensation.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal committed error in considering the income of Rs. 1600/ per month; that multiplier of 16 years is on lower side. It should be 17 in view of the decision in case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. According to him income should have been assessed at Rs. 2000/ per month. By considering the income of Rs.2000/ and 40% disability the monthly loss would come to Rs. 800./ and annual loss would come to Rs. 9600/. Looking to the age of the appellant a multiplier of 17 ought to have been taken. By applying multiplier of 17, the future loss of income would come to Rs. 163200/. He further submitted that an amount of Rs. 20000/ awarded towards pain, shock and suffering is on lower side.
4.0 Learned advocate for the respondent supported the judgement and award of the learned Tribunal and submitted that the appeal may be dismissed.
5.0 Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the document on record.
6.0 As far as income is concerned, it is found that the appellant stated that she was doing work of washing cement bags and earning Rs. 60/ per day prior to accident. However, there is no cogent, reliable evidence with respect to the income. In that view of the matter by considering the entire facts and circumstance of the case the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the notional income of Rs. 1600/ per month. As far as disability is concerned, the claimant has not produced an oral evidence of Dr. Parikh but the course of evidence the claimant as well as her learned advocate submitted a pursis vide Eh. 51 and conceded that they have no objection if 40% permanent partial disability should be assessed as a body whole. Therefore, considering the disability of 40%. the loss of income per month was considered at Rs.640/ and Rs. 7680/ per year. Further looking to the age of the claimant as 30 years at the time of accident, multiplier of 16 was taken which is on lower side. Looking to the age of the injured, the multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied. By applying multiplier of 17, the future loss of income would come to Rs. 130560/. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1, 22,880/ towards future loss of income which is on lower side. Therefore, the claimant is entitled ad additional amount of RS. 7680/.
7.0 Further, considering the period of hospitalization and 40% permanent partial disability for body as a whole and two operations, the amount of Rs. 20000/ awarded towards pain, shock and suffering is just and proper. The amount awarded towards other heads by the learned Tribunal are also just and proper.
8.0 Accordingly it is held that the appellant shall be entitled to a further sum of Rs.7680/ in addition to the amount already awarded to her by the Tribunal. However, the interest on this additional amount will be only 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realization. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*