1.0 As per Court's request, Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned advocate appears for the respondent insurance company.
2.0 This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 19.08.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Panchmahal at Godhra in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 587 of 1994 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 79000/ with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till realization.
3.0 The claimant was travelling as pillion rider on the motor cycle driven by Hemantkumar Pathak. When they were on the left side of the road, the tempo No. GRY 4654 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the motor cycle. The claimant therefore, received injuries. He therefore,filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal wherein the aforesaid award came to be passed. This appeal is at the instance of claimant for the enhancement of compensation.
4.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal committed error in not awarding any compensation for future loss of income on account of the disability.
5.0 Learned advocate for the respondent supported the judgement and award of the learned Tribunal and submitted that the appeal may be dismissed.
6.0 Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the document on record.
7.0 As far as income and disability are concerned, the same are not disputed. The claimant has stated his income in his petition to be Rs.2500/ per month. In that view of the matter by considering the entire facts and circumstance of the case the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of Rs. 2500/ per month. However, the Tribunal has not considered the aspect of future loss of income. Therefore, by taking income of Rs. 2500/per month the prospective income would come to Rs. 3750/ per month. Considering the disability to the extent of 10% for body as a whole, the monthly loss would come to Rs. 375/ and annual loss would come to Rs. 4500/. The claimant was aged 32 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the multiplier of 16 would apply. By applying multiplier of 16 years in view of the principles laid down in case of Sarla Varma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2009(6) SCC, 121.Sarla Verma (supra) the future loss of income would come to Rs. 72000/ ( Rs. 4500/ x 16).
8.0 The amount of Rs. 15000/ towards pain, shock and suffering, Rs.
40000/ towards medical treatment and Rs.3000/ towards transportation, Rs. 36000/ under the heads of attendants charges and loss of income of the attendance, Rs. 3000/ towards special diet and Rs. 15000/ towards actual loss of income are just and proper. Thus, the total compensation will be Rs. 151000/ whereas the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 79000/. Therefore the claimant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 72000/ ( Rs. 151000/ Rs. 79000/) for future loss of income.
9.0 In the premises aforesaid, it is held that claimant is entitled to a further sum of Rs. 72000/ in addition to the amount already awarded to him by the Tribunal. However, the interest on this additional amount will be only 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs.
niru* (K.S.JHAVERI, J.)