1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award rendered by the learned Motor Accident Tribunal (Aux), Ahmedabad City, on 08.10.2001 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.241 of 1991, whereby the Tribunal awarded in all Rs.14,250/- by way of compensation to the appellant-claimant with running interest at the rate of 9% per-annum from the date of filing of said claim petition till the realization of amount together with the proportionate costs and interest thereon and directed respondents herein to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation jointly and/or severally. The respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 herein (respondent no.1 subsequently came to be deleted), were original opponents before the Tribunal.
2. The appellant felt that the amount awarded by way of compensation is very inadequate and less, and therefore, preferred the instant appeal claiming enhancement of the amount of compensation at least to the extent of Rs.98,350/-. As per the case of the claimant, on 23.08.1990, at about 10.30 a.m., he was proceeding in a tractor bearing registration no.GJ-1B-4293, which was driven by one Manish Kanubhai Gohel. The said tractor was driven by Manish Kanubhai Goehl with moderate speed and by observing traffic rules and when they reached near the Isanpur Cross-Roads, one tanker bearing registration no.GTA-8965 driven by the original opponent no.1 and owned by the original opponent no.2 and insured with the original opponent no.3- Insurance Company came with full speed rashly and negligently and dashed violently with the tractor in which the claimant was traveling and as a result, the claimant sustained serious bodily injuries. According to the claimant, the injuries resulted into permanent bodily disability affecting his earning capacity. It was his case that at the time of accident, he was agriculturist by profession and also doing work of Cattle Breeding and he used to earn Rs.2500/- to Rs.3000/- per month. He had to incur expenses for his medicine, treatment etc. He filed said claim petition to recover Rs.1,50,000/- by way of compensation. The original opponent nos. 1 and 2 resisted the claim petition of the claimant by filing common written- statement at Exh.12 and interalia they denied all the allegations levelled by the claimant against them. The original opponent no.3- Insurance Company also resisted the claim by filing written-statement and interalia denied all the allegations made by the claimant in his claim petition.
2. The Tribunal while deciding the issue of negligence took into consideration the oral and the documentary evidence adduced on record and more particularly, the F.I.R. as well as the panchnama of the scene of occurrence etc. and came to the conclusion that the opponent no.1-Driver of the tanker GTA-8965 was solely negligent in causing the accident, and therefore, replied to issue no.1 regarding the negligence in affirmative. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, considering the over all evidence on record and more particularly, considering the medical evidence, observed that the claimant was entitled to recover Rs.5000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering and Rs.1500/- under the head of medical treatment. However, about income of the applicant, the Tribunal in Para-12 of the impugned judgment and award observed that the case of the claimant is that he was earning Rs.3000/- per month cannot be accepted, as the agriculture land was jointly owned by himself and his family members and thus, he was not sole owner of the land. While coming to such conclusion, the Tribunal took into consideration certain revenue record produced on record. The Tribunal come to the conclusion that at least income of the claimant can be said to be Rs.1500/- per month as observed in Para-15 of the impugned judgment and award. For future loss of income, the Tribunal observed that as per the medical evidence on record, the claimant had suffered 10% permanent physical disability of body as a whole as per the disability certificate at Exh.40, but said disability certificate was of no use to the claimant. The Tribunal however, awarded Rs.5000/- under the head of future loss of income as lump sum
Tribunal thus, in all awarded Rs.14250/- by way of compensation.
3. Mr.Bhatt, learned advocate for the appellant- claimant, at the outset, submitted that the Tribunal seriously erred in coming to the conclusion that claimant was entitled to recover Rs.5000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering. He drew my attention to the medical evidence on record about nature of serious injuries sustained by the claimant and further the fact that the applicant had to undergo operation and had to remain indoor patient for about 9 days. It is, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal should have awarded at least Rs.15000/- by way of pain, shock and suffering.
3.1 Mr.Bhatt, learned advocate for the appellant-claimant, contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimant regarding his profession, so also his monthly income. Mr.Bhatt, learned advocate for the appellant-claimant, submitted that there is no dispute that the land was jointly owned by the claimant and his family members, but the claimant also contributed his agricultural skill in the agricultural operation and he submitted that even in Para-15 of the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal observed that he was supervising the agricultural operation and thus, the Tribunal should have awarded that reasonable amount under the head of future loss of income on account of disability sustained by him. It caused immense loss for supervision of the agricultural activity, so also to render his special skill in said work.
3.2 Mr.Bhatt, learned advocate for the appellant-claimant, contended that the Tribunal committed serious error while awarding only Rs.1500/- as actual loss of income. He submitted that considering over all medical evidnece on record and further the fact that he was to undergo operation and had to remain in hospital as indoor patient for nine days and even after discharge for reasonable period, he was not able to do his regualr work. He, therefore, submitted that reasonable amount may be awarded even under this head.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Rajesh Chauhan for learned advocate Mr.Munsha for the respondent no.2-Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has vehemently opposed this application and submitted that the Tribunal has awarded just and sufficient amount of compensation. He further submitted that it is true that respondent no.2 has not filed any cross- appeal or any cross-objections challenging the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal but the fact remains that there was collision of two vehicles and the Tribunal erred in holding responsible only the driver of the tanker belonging to the respondent no.2. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, drivers of both the vehicles should have been made responsible but Tribunal only held responsible driver of the opponent no.2. It is therefore, submitted that in that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is less.
4.1 Learned advocate Mr.Rajesh Chauhan for learned advocate Mr.Munsha for the respondent no.2-Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation further submitted that the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the agriculture land was not of the sole ownership of the claimant and along with him there were other family members who were co-owners and except bare word of the claimant, there is nothing on record and he was actually taking part in agricultural operation. In that view of the matter and considering the medical evidence available on record, it cannot be said that the Tribunal committed any error while awarding Rs.5000/- under the head of economic loss, Rs.5000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering and Rs.1500/- under the head of actual loss of income. Therefore, he submitted that total amount of Rs.14250/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and at any rate cannot be said to be less or inadequate and appeal may be dismissed.
5. None appeared for the respondent no.3-United Insurance Company Ltd.
6. I have considered the record and proceeding in context with the submission made by either side. As stated above, while replying the issue no.1 regarding the negligence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that driver of the tanker was responsible for sole negligence. Neither original opponents preferred any appeal nor filed any cross- objections in this appeal challenging the said finding. The instant appeal is filed by the original claimant for enhancement. In that view of the matter, there is no reason whatsoever for this Court to disturb the finding arrived at by the Tribunal qua the issue no.1 regarding the negligence.
7. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering. I have taken into consideration the oral evidence adduced by the claimant, so also overall medical evidence. The claimant has also produced bills and vouchers showing the purchase of various medicines. I have also taken into consideration the oral evidence of claimant at Exh.26. More over, considering the disability certificate Exh.40 and the relevant medical evidence on record, it transpires that the claimant sustained multiple fracture injury on his ribs and chest and he also sustained other injuries. It transpires that he had to undergo operation as well as he had to remain indoor patient in hospital for about nine days. Thus, considering the nature of serious injuries sustained and overall medical evidence on record, this Court comes to the conclusion that the claimant was entitled to recover Rs.10,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering.
8. The Tribunal awarded by way of lump sum amount of Rs.5000/- as future loss of income. Considering overall evidence on record, it is true that the agriculture land did not exclusively belong to the claimant but along with claimant, there were other family members who jointly owned the land. Further, it transpires that at the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 35 years. According to his overall evidence, he supervised the agricultural operation as well as he was contributing his special skills in said work. The Tribunal in Paragraph-15 in the impugned judgment and award while considering the actual income of the claimant, observed that the claimant was supervising the agricultural operation and considered Rs.1500/- per month as his actual income.
9. However, on the basis of disability certificate Exh.40, the tribunal observed that the claimant sustained permanent physical disability of the body as a whole at 10%. The Tribunal then came to the conclusion that the claimant was only entitled to recover Rs.5000/- under the had of future loss of income. No reason is assigned by the Tribunal as to how the figure of Rs.5000/- came to be worked out under this head. In above view of the matter, simply considering the actual income of Rs.1500/- per month earned by the claimant and considering the age of the claimant at the time of the accident, for the purpose of determining the future loss of income and considering 10% permanent bodily disability, it can safely be said that the monthly future loss sustained by the claimant can be assessed at Rs.150/- per month and would come to Rs.1800/- per year. Since claimant was aged about 35 years at the time of the accident and in that view of the matter, considering the Para-21, in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. and others, reported in 2009(6) SCC 121, an appropriate multiplier which the Tribunal should have adopted comes 16 and under such circumstances, the claimant is entitled to recover Rs.28800/- (1800X16) under the head of loss to the future income.
10. The Tribunal, though came to the conclusion that the monthly income of the claimant can be assessed at Rs.1500/- per month but, awarded only Rs.1500/- under the head of actual loss of income whereas medical evidence reveals that the claimant sustained serious bodily injuries which has resulted into multiple fracture and he had to undergo operation in the hospital and further the fact that the injury resulted into permanent bodily disability, at least it can be said that for the period of two months, the applicant could not have attended his work. Under such circumstances, this Court comes to the conclusion the original claimant is at least entitled to recover Rs.3000/- under the head of actual loss of income. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1500/- towards the medical expenses and treatment charges and Rs.1250/- under the head of special diet attendance charges etc. It appears that no enhancement is warranted in it. Thus, the claimant is entitled to recover in all Rs.44550/- rounding up to 44600/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs. Rs.14250/- and after deducting Rs.14250/-, the total comes to Rs.30,350/- and the appellant therefore is entitled to get Rs.30,350/- as enhanced amount of compensation.
11. The instant appeal, therefore, deserves to be partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal deserves to be enhanced as above.
12. For foregoing reasons, the instant appeal is partly allowed and the amount awarded by way of compensation by learned Motor Accident Tribunal (Aux), Ahmedabad City, on 08.10.2001 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.241 of 1991, is hereby enhanced to Rs.30,350/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Three Hundred Fifty only). The respondent nos. 2 and 3 are directed to pay to the appellant-original claimant the enhancement amount of compensation as directed above with running interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of original claim petition till the realization. The rest of the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal is not interfered with and shall remain intact. No costs.
Girish (J.C.UPADHYAYA,J.)