By way of filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellant – original claimant has challenged the judgment and award dated 26th March 1996 passed by the learned MAC Tribunal (Aux.) at Nadiad in MAC Petition No.142 of 1986 vide which the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,82,700 to the claimants as against the claim of Rs.5 lakhs and prayed for enhancement of the awarded amount. 2 The facts leading to filing the present appeal are to the effect that on 3rd June 1985 the appellant along with one Babubhai Zaverbhai were going from Khambhat to their village Moraj on Scooter and when they reached near Vatadara village, one Rameshbhai Patel, a friend of the petitioner, had met on the way due to which petitioner stopped his Scooter on the side of the road and while they were talking at that time, opponent No.1 came from the side of Undel village along with his Tractor No.MEK 951 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the scooter of the appellant because of which the appellant and his friend Babubhai Zaverbhai received injuries. The appellant sustained injuries on his head, both legs, right hand and on his back. He remained as indoor patient for 540 days and was operated upon for 13 times. He sustained 25% whole body disability. He, therefore, filed claim petition claiming total compensation of Rs.5,00,000 on various heads from the opponents.
3 The learned Tribunal vide impugned judgment and award dated 26th March 1996 awarded the following amounts:-
Future loss of income Rs.45,000 Operation and other Medical Expenses Rs.90,000 Attendant Charges Rs.16,200 Special Diet Rs. 7,500 Transportation Rs. 2,400 Payment to Tractor Driver & Farm Manager Rs.21,600 ========= Rs.1,82,700 Feeling aggrieved by the same, the appellant – original claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
4 I have heard Shri J.A.Adeshra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr K.K. Nair, learned counsel for the insurance company and perused the entire record.
5 Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding any amount under the head of Pain, Shock and Suffering. He further submitted that the Tribunal has not considered future economic prospects of the appellant and the amount of Rs.1000 is too meager amount. He has next contended that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of actual loss of income as he remained as indoor patient for a period of 18 months. He further contended that the multiplier of 15 adopted by the Tribunal is on the lower side and it should be at least 17. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.
6 Mr K.K. Nair, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the appellant is a self-employed person and therefore no future rise in income should be considered. He further contended that only seven operations were required to be done and the Tribunal has paid Rs.21,600 under the head of actual loss of income and therefore no additional amount is required to be paid to the appellant.
7. On the point of future loss of income, the contention raised by the appellant is required to be accepted. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 179, the average gross future monthly income could be arrived at by adding the actual gross income at the time of accident, namely, Rs.1,000/- per month to the maximum which he would have otherwise got had he not met with accident i.e., Rs 2,000/- per month and dividing that figure by two. Thus, the monthly income of the injured would come to Rs.1500 per month and Rs.18000 per annum. As the claimant sustained 25% whole body disability, the future economic loss would come to Rs.4,500 per annum. Looking to the age of the appellant, he is entitled for multiplier of 17. Thus, the appellant would be entitled to Rs.76,500 under the head of future economic loss. However, the appellant has been awarded Rs.45,000 under this head and therefore he is entitled for additional amount of Rs.31,500 under this head.
8 Over and above the same, the appellant is also entitled to Rs.15,000 under the head of Pain, Shock and Suffering. The Tribunal has observed in paragraph 16 of the judgment and award that two persons were attending to the appellant in the hospital and therefore he is entitled to get additional amount of Rs.16,200 under this head. Thus, the appellant would be entitled to get the following additional amounts of compensation:-
Pain, Shock & Suffering Rs.15,000 Future Economic Loss Rs.31,500 Attendant Charges Rs.16,200 Rs.92,700
9 In view of the aforesaid discussion, the judgment and award dated 26th March 1996 passed by the learned MAC Tribunal (Aux.) at Nadiad in MAC Petition No.142 of 1986 vide which the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,82,700 to the claimants is modified to the extent that the claimant is entitled to Rs.2,75,400/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.92,700 along with interest at the rate of 7½ % per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd