1. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 30.06.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Jamnagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 682 of 1993 so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 81,550/- as compensation with interest and costs.
2. It is the case of the appellant that on 14.08.1993 the original claimant was travelling in a bus bearing registration No. GJ-10-T-1872 which was being driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which the bus dashed with the stationary truck thereby injuring the claimant. The appellant therefore filed claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
3. Ms.
Banna Dutta, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant's monthly income is assessed on a lower side and that the Tribunal has not considered the future increase in the income. He submitted that having regard to the fact that the appellant was only 33 years old the Tribunal ought to have taken prospective income into account. She submitted that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on lower side and requires interference by this court.
4. Ms.
Megha Jani, learned advocate appearing for the respondent-Insurance company supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the same is just and proper. She submitted that the Tribunal after considering the law laid down by this Court has applied correct multiplier on the facts of the present case.
5. Before proceeding further it is required to be noted that the issues with regard to income and deduction by way of personal expenses are already settled by the decisions of Apex Court. In the case of Smt Sarla Dixit & Anr Vs. Balwant Yadav & Ors, reported in 1996 AIR 1274 (=1996 SCC (3) 179) it is held as under:
"...
Adopting the same scientific yardstick as laid down in the aforesaid judgement, the computation of compensation in the present case can almost be subjected to a well settled mathematical formula. Deceased in the present case, as seen above, was earning gross salary of Rs.1,543/- per month. Rounding it upto figure of Rs.1,500/- and keeping in view all the future prospects which the deceased had in stable military service in the light of his brilliant academic record and performance in the military service spread over 7 years, and also keeping in view the other imponderables like accidental death while discharging military duties and the hazards of military service, it will not be unreasonable to predicate that his gross monthly income would have shot up to at least double than what he was earning at the time of his death, i.e. upto Rs.3,000/- per month had he survived in life and had successfully completed his future military career till the time of superannuation. The average future monthly income could be arrived at by adding the actual gross income at the time of death, namely, Rs.1,500/- per month to the maximum whichhe would have otherwise got had he not died a premature death, i.e. Rs.3,000/- per month and dividing that figure by two. Thus the average gross monthly income spread over his entire future career, had it been available, would work out to Rs.4,500/- divided by 2, i.e. Rs.2,200/-. Rs.2,200/- per month would have been the gross monthly average income available to the family fo the deceased had he survived as a bread winner...."
6. Thus considering the formula laid down in the case of Smt. Sarla Dixit (supra) the future income of the deceased is to be calculated. In the present case the income of the deceased can be assessed at Rs. 3100/-. Nothing is pointed out to take a different figure in that regard. The said income should be doubled and actual gross income should be added. By doubling, the amount would come to Rs. 6200/- and by adding current income of Rs. 3100/- it would come to Rs. 9300/-. Average monthly income can be derived by dividing the same by 2. Therefore the average income would come to Rs. 4650/-.
6.1 In the present case, the disability of 25% when considered shall come to Rs. 1162.50 per month and Rs. 13950/- per annum as far as future economic loss is concerned. Thereafter, considering the multiplier of 5 as adopted by the Tribunal, the future loss of income would come to Rs. 69,750 (Rs. 13950 x 5) which is rounded off to Rs. 70,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 45000/- under the said head. Therefore the appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 25000/-.
7. As regards the rest of the awards under various heads are just and proper and no interference is required.
8. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 25,000/- 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// Top