IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 2313 of 1992 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA ========================================== ===============
============================================= ============ SAMAT RAMA AHIR - Appellant(s) Versus DEVJI BIJAL AYAR & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================== =============== Appearance :
MR MEHUL S SHAH for Appellant( DELETED for Respondent(s) : 1, RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2 MR HASMUKH THAKKER for Respondent(s) : 3, ========================================== =============== CORAM : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA Date : 13/01/2012
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act is at the instance of the claimant and is directed against an award dated October 29, 1991 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Aux], Kachchh at Bhuj in M.A.C. Petition No. 198 of 1986 thereby disposing of the proceedings by awarding a sum of Rs.37,400/- as compensation with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of application till the deposit of the amount before the Tribunal.
Being dissatisfied, the claimant has come up with the present appeal.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we find that there is no dispute that due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle the accident occurred and that the claimant was an employee of the owner of the vehicle.
It appears from the evidence on record that the victim was aged 45 years at the time of the accident and he used to work as a labourer. According to the claimant, he used to earn Rs.30/- per day if he was required to carry salt-bags whereas he used to get Rs.20/- a day if he was required to carry other goods.
The learned Tribunal below came to the conclusion that the monthly income of the victim should be treated to be Rs.600/- a month. However, taking into consideration future enhanced income that the claimant might have earned, the Tribunal arrived at a figure of Rs.750/- a month as the monthly income. The Tribunal found that his permanent disability should be treated to be 20%. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the annual loss of income would be Rs.1800/-, and applying thereto a multiplier of 10, the Tribunal awarded Rs.18,000/- under the head of future loss of income. Apart from the aforesaid amount of Rs.18,000/-, the Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering and Rs.2400/- towards loss of actual income for a period of four months at the rate of Rs.600/- a month. A further amount of Rs.2000/- was also awarded towards medical charges, rich diet and attendant charges.
So far as the award of Rs.15,000/- for pain, shock and suffering, Rs.2000/- for medical charges and rich diet etc., and the actual loss of income of Rs.2400/- are concerned, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal below.
Therefore, the questions that fall for determination in this appeal is whether the Tribunal below was justified in the facts of the present case in assessing the extent of permanent disability to be 20% from the evidence on record and whether assessment of Rs.18,000/- as compensation for future loss of income was justified.
In the case before us, I find that the Doctor had opined that the claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 25% towards the upper part of the body and 35% towards the lower part of the body.
In my opinion, in such circumstance, the findings of the Tribunal that permanent disability should be assessed at 20% cannot be supported particularly when the victim was a labourer by occupation. I, therefore, propose to consider the extent of permanent disability to be 25% in the facts of the present case.
Similarly, when the victim was aged 45 years, the application of multiplier of 10 by the Tribunal, according to me, is on the lower side. In the facts of the present case, I propose to hold that the multiplier should be 12.
Thus, considering the monthly income at Rs.750/-, permanent disability at 25% and multiplier at 12, the claimant would be entitled to get Rs.27,000/- as future loss of income as against Rs.18,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, I hold that the claimant would be entitled to get an additional amount of Rs.9000/- under the head of future loss of income.
The appeal is, therefore, allowed in part. The award is modified to the extent that the claimant is entitled to get an additional amount of Rs.9000/- under the head of future loss of income. The Insurance Company is directed to pay further amount of Rs.9000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the application till 31st January 1999 and at the rate of 8% from January 1, 2000 till the actual date of deposit. The Insurance Company shall deposit the aforesaid amount with the Tribunal within two months from today, and on deposit of the amount, the Tribunal is directed to pay the amount to the claimant, on proper verification.
The appeal is thus allowed partly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be, however, no order as to costs.
Registry is directed to return the Record and Proceedings to the trial Court forthwith.
[BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, ACTING C.J.] mathew