1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 10.06.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morbi in Claim Petition No.209/1989 whereby, the claim petition was partly allowed and the appellant, original claimant, was awarded total compensation of Rs.69,740/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization and proportionate costs.
2. The facts in brief are that on 25.09.1986 at around 0230 – 0400 hrs. while the appellant, original claimant, along with one other person, were going towards a nearby field situated on the Kandla – Ahmedabad for the purpose of grazing their cattle, a Truck bearing registration no. GTY 6908, driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3-Insurance Company, got out of control and dashed the appellant and the cattle. As a result thereof, the appellant sustained severe bodily injuries. He, therefore, filed the claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The said claim petition came to be partly allowed by way of the impugned award. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent no.3-Insurance Company. Though served, none appears on behalf of respondents no.1 & 2. The main contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the Tribunal has erred in appreciating the medical evidence on record in its proper perspective. It has been submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the permanent disability at 15% for the body as a whole. It has also been submitted that the Tribunal awarded only Rs.7,500/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering though the appellant had sustained five fractures on different parts of the body.
4. It is true that the Doctor, who had given treatment to the appellant, had initially assessed the total permanent disability at 31% and the Tribunal assessed it at 15% for the body as a whole. However, it is pertinent to note that the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.1,600/- though in the claim petition (Exh.1) it was averred that his monthly income was Rs.900/-. Even if we adopt the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav and another, 1996 (3) SCC 179, the monthly income cannot exceed Rs.1,350/-. Therefore, even if we assess the permanent disability on the higher side and reduce the monthly income, the net outcome would not make much difference. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it appropriate to disturb the impugned award passed by the Tribunal.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*