1. By way of this appeal, the present appellant-original claimant has challenged the judgement and award dated 20.11.1999, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Valsar at Navsari, in M.A.C.P. No.124 of 1981, whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.1,31,814/- to the claimant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of application till realization.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 18.09.1990 one Bhupeshkumar Balwantrai Desai, appellant herein, was going to his village on his motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-15-2474. At that time one Tempo bearing registration No. GJ-3523 came and dashed the motorcycle of the appellant. As a result of the said accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries and therefore, he filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.124 of 1991 before the Tribunal. The learned tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after recording the evidence decided the claim petitions and passed the award as stated hereinabove against which the present appeal is preferred.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation to the appellant. He further submitted the tribunal failed to appreciate the material on record in its true perspective. He therefore, prayed to allow this appeal.
4. Learned Advocate for the respondents has submitted that the tribunal after considering the evidence on record has awarded the compensation, therefore, he prayed to dismiss the present appeal.
5. I have heard learned advocates for both the parties and perused the material on record. From the record it is clear that the tribunal has not calculated the income of the appellant as per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Dixit and Another Vs. Balwant Yadav and Another reported in (1996) 3 SCC 179. There is no dispute about the income of the deceased, which is Rs. 5000/- per month. If it is doubled and added the income it would come to Rs. 7500/- per month. Since, the appellant has sustained 5% disability, he is entitled to 5% amount from his monthly income. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to Rs.375/- towards monthly loss of income and accordingly annually, it comes o Rs.4500/-.
6. I find that the Tribunal has committed an error in adopting the multiplier of 16. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2009(6) SCC, 121, the multiplier of 16 is on lower side, it should be 17. If the multiplier of 17 is adopted the net amount under the head of future loss of income comes to Rs. 76,500/- [Rs.375 x 12 x 17]. I also find that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of actual loss of income, therefore, I am of the view of that if Rs.5000/- is granted under the head of actual loss of income, the same would met ends of justice.
7. In that view of the matter, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 81,500/- under the head of future loss of income [76,500/- + Rs.5000/-]. Over and above the claimant is also entitled to other amount granted by the Tribunal under different heads i.e. Rs.3,500/- under the head of attendant charge, Rs. 6,000/- under the head of special diet, Rs.10,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering, 3000/- under the head of transportation and Rs. 61,314/- towards Medical expenses.
8. Thus, in all the claimant is entitled to Rs.1,65,314 for total compensation, whereas the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 1,31,814/-. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to additional amount of Rs.33,500/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realization.
9. The judgement and award of the tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. Decree be drawn accordingly. The present appeal is partly allowed.
[K.S.JHAVERI,J.] pawan Top