1. By way of this appeal, the present appellant-original claimant has challenged the judgement and award dated 20.04.1999, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Main), Kheda at Nadiad, in M.A.C.P. No.1015 of 1988, whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.65,000/- 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 the original claimant was travelling in tractor bearing No.GRM 8414 for going to village Ghoghawada by loading grass. The said Tractor was being driven on Nadiad Mahudha road with full care and caution and at that time the offending luxury bus bearing No.RNY 434 came there in excessive speed and dashed with the tractor due to which the Tractor fell in a ditch causing serious injuries to the original claimant. Therefore, he filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.1015 of 1988 before the Tribunal for compensation. The Tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after recording the evidence decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated hereinabove against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant-original claimant.
3. On the point of income, the Tribunal has considered income of the claimant at Rs.800 per month and as he sustained 25% permanent partial disability, he was entitled to Rs.200 per month and Rs.2400 per annum towards future economic loss. Considering the age of the claimant, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 15 and thereby awarded Rs.36,000 towards future economic loss. Over and above, the Tribunal has also awarded Rs.4,000 under the head of actual loss of income, Rs.10,000 towards medicines and treatment charges and Rs.15,000 towards Pain, Shock and Suffering, Rs.10,000 towards transportation and conveyance charges. Thus, in all Rs.65,000 was awarded to the claimant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation to the claimant. He further contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the future loss of income. He further contended that the amount awarded under the head of actual loss of salary is on lower side.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective 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. Even, if Rs.800/- is taken as monthly income of the deceased, as per the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case, considering future economic prospects, the monthly loss of income would come to Rs.1200/-. Since, the claimant has sustained 25% disability for the body as a whole, he is entitled for 25% amount from his monthly economic loss of income. Therefore, the monthly economic loss of income comes to Rs.300/- and accordingly annually it comes to Rs.3600/-.
6. The multiplier of 15 adopted by the Tribunal is on lower side, it should be 18, 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. If multiplier of 18 is adopted, the future loss of income comes to Rs.64,800/-, whereas the Tribunal has awarded Rs.36,000/-. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for additional amount of Rs.28,800/- under the head of future loss of income. No interference is called for under any other head.
7. In that view of the matter, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.28,800/- along with interest at the rate of 7 ½ per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application till realization.
8. The judgement and award of the tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The decree be drawn accordingly. present appeal is partly allowed.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd Top