1. In connection with the vehicular accident that took place on the Nagalpur – Vikasnagar Road involving the Jeep bearing registration No.GJ-2-T-2667 in which the appellant, original claimant, sustained severe bodily injuries, a claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.627/1996 came to be filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Mehsana claiming total compensation of Rs.1.00 Lacs. The said claim petition came to be partly allowed by impugned judgment and award dated 07.04.2006 whereby, the appellant was awarded total compensation of Rs.38,900/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the appellant, original claimant, has preferred the present appeal for enhancement.
2. The main grounds under which the appellant has prayed for enhancement is that the income assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. It is submitted that the Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier of 18 instead of 15 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121. Further, the amount awarded under the head of pain, shock and suffering is also on the lower side. Under no other grounds, the appellant has prayed for enhancement of compensation.
3. Per contra, it has been contended on behalf of respondent-Insurance Company that the appellant shall be entitled for the multiplier of 15 only in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shyam Singh and others, AIR 2011 S.C. 3231. It has been contended that the income assessed by the Tribunal is appropriate and hence, this Court may not disturb the award on any of the grounds.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Though served, none appears on behalf of respondent no.1. Before the Tribunal, no documentary evidence was produced to prove the income of the appellant. However, considering the age of the appellant at the time of accident, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the annual income at Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs.12,000/-. Thus, if we assess the annual income at Rs.15,000/-, the annual loss of income on the basis of 10% permanent disability would be Rs.1,500/-. The claim petition was filed u/s.163-A of the M.V. Act and therefore, the decision rendered in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) will not apply in view of the decision rendered in Shyam Singh's case (supra). Hence, the appropriate multiplier would be 15 only and not 18, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant. Thus, by adopting the multiplier of 15, the total amount under the head of future loss of income would be Rs.22,500/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.18,000/- under the said head and hence, the appellant shall be entitled for additional amount of Rs.4,500/- under the head of future loss of income.
5. So far as the amount awarded under the other heads are concerned, including the head of pain, shock and suffering, I find the same to be just, legal and appropriate. Hence, I find no reasons to enhance the amount awarded under any other grounds.
6. In view of the above discussion, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellant, original claimant, shall be entitled for additional compensation of Rs.4,500/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*