1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award of the M.A.C.T., Bhavnagar, dated 05.12.1994, rendered in M.A.C.P. No.373 of 1991, whereby the tribunal awarded Rs.1,60,000/- along with 12 per cent interest.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 16.10.1991, while the appellant was traveling in a truck driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3, the said truck met with an accident with a tractor being driven by respondent No.4, owned by respondent No.5 and insured by respondent No.6. He, therefore, filed the aforesaid claim petition, wherein the tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award. Hence, the present appeal.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has raised various contentions. The tribunal erred in passing the impugned judgment and award. The tribunal failed to appreciate the material on record. The amount awarded by the tribunal towards compensation is meager, and hence, he has prayed to allow this appeal.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents have opposed the appeal and have prayed to dispose of the same, as being without merit.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. To prove the factum of accident, the appellant entered the witness-box and examined himself at Exhibit-32. He also placed reliance on FIR(Exhibit-33), Panchnama(Exhibit-34), which reveals that the road was wide enough to allow both the vehicles in question to pass easily, had they taken proper care and caution, and therefore, the tribunal rightly hold that the driver of the truck and that of tractor were negligent to the extent of 60 per cent and 40 per cent, respectively, and that the appellant is entitled to claim compensation.
7. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, according to the appellant, on account of the accident, he had to remain in hospital for about more than two months. The appellant also produced injury certificate(Exhibit-36), discharge card(Exhibit-35), which supports the case of the appellant. He, further, examined Dr. Dholakia, who assessed the disability sustained by the appellant at 90 per cent of the body as a whole and opined that the appellant shall not be able to do labour work. It may be noted that at the time of accident the appellant was aged about 28 years. In spite of that the tribunal has applied the multiplier of 10, taking disability sustained by the appellant at 90 per cent of the body as a whole, which is on lower side. In that view of the matter, here, it would be relevant to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in “SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR.”,(2009) 6 SCC 121. Thus, applying the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment, it would be just and reasonable if the multiplier of 15 is applied. Hence, the amount towards annual loss would come to Rs.(900 X 12)=10800/- and future loss would come to Rs.(10800 X 15)=1,62,000/-. The tribunal has already awarded Rs.1,06,000/- under the said head, and hence, the the appellant shall have been entitled to an additional amount of Rs.(1,62,000 – 1,06,000)=56,000/-. But, in view of the fact that the appellant has restricted this appeal to only Rs.40,000/-, he shall be entitled to only Rs.40,000/-.
8. Since, the amounts awarded under the other heads are just and proper, same require no interference.
9. The tribunal has awarded the original amount of compensation along with 12 per cent interest. However, taking into consideration, the prevalent rate of interest, it would be just and proper if the additional amount of compensation is granted along 7.5 per cent interest.
10. In the result, the appeal is PARTLY ALLOWED. The appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.40,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application, till its realization. The judgment and award impugned in this appeal stands modified to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI,J.) Umesh/