1. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 31.07.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Panchmahal at Godhra in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 376 of 1995 so far as the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,29,540/- as compensation with interest and costs.
2. The original claimant had filed claim petition seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs for the vehicular accident which occurred on 11.01.1995 while the appellant was hit by a tractor trolley driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner. The appellant therefore filed claim petition for compensation. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
Mr.
Bukhari, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in assessing the appellant's prospective monthly income only Rs. 3000/- when the income was considered as Rs. 2500/- per month. He submitted that the prospective income ought to have been assessed keeping in mind the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Smt Sarla Dixit & Anr Vs. Balwant Yadav & Ors, reported in 1996 AIR 1274 (=1996 SCC (3) 179). He further submitted that looking to the age of the claimant, the multiplier adopted is on lower side. He submitted that the disability assessed by the Tribunal is on lower side.
3.1 Learned advocate appearing for the respondent supported the award of the Tribunal and submitted that the same having been passed after considering the evidence in detail does not call for any interference by this Court. He submitted that in fact the Tribunal erred in assessing the income without any cogent evidence. He submitted that in such a case the Tribunal ought to have considered the notional income.
4. In the present case the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3000/-. The appellant has not produced any documentary evidence whatsoever to substantiate his claim in this regard. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that notional income should be considered as the income of the appellant in the present case in absence of cogent and admissible evidence. Therefore the income of the appellant is assessed at Rs. 15000/- per annum. The said income should be doubled and actual gross income should be added. By doubling, the amount would come to Rs.30000/- and by adding current income of Rs. 15000/- it would come to Rs. 45000/-. Average monthly income can be derived by dividing the same by 2. Therefore the average income would come to Rs. 22,500/-.
4.1 The disability assessed by the Tribunal is 28%. The injuries sustained by the appellant were assessed to be organic brain damage with cognitive deterioration and personality changes. The certificate issued by the doctor mentions the disability of the appellant to be 56%. This Court thinks it fit to assess disability of 56%. Accordingly the loss of income will be Rs. 12,600/- per annum.
4.2 However, I am of the view that, looking to the age of the claimant, the multiplier of 18 awarded in the present case is just and proper. Therefore the future loss of income would come to Rs. 2,26,800 (Rs.12600 x 18). The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,81,440/- under this head and therefore an additional amount of Rs. 45,360/- is required to be granted under the head of future loss of income.
5. As regards the rest of the awards under various heads, the same is just and proper and no interference is called for.
6. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 45,360/- alongwith interest at 7.5% from the date of application till realisation. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top