1. By way of this appeal, the present appellant-original claimant has challenged the judgement and award dated 30.10.2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Main), Kutch at Bhuj, in M.A.C.P. No.414 of 1992, whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.3,00,900/- 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 in an vehicular accident, Dilip Atrilal Pandya, appellant herein, sustained grievous injuries and therefore, he filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.414 of 1992 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, for compensation. The learned 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. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation to the appellant. He further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier of 18 instead of 17. He further contended that the amount awarded under the head of pain, shock and suffering is on lower side, as the appellant has remained an indoor patient for 492 days in the hospital. He further contended that in spite of assessing Rs.25,000/- under the head of disfigurement, the Tribunal has not calculated the said amount while awarding compensation.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents have opposed the appeal and have prayed to dismiss the same, as being without merit.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record as well as the judgement and award of the tribunal. I find that the contention of learned advocate for the appellant is required to be accepted. The Tribunal has committed an error in adopting the multiplier of 17. 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, the tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier of 18, instead of 17. If multiplier of 18 is adopted, the amount under the head of future loss of income comes to Rs. 1,03,680/-[Rs.480 x 12 x 18] whereas the tribunal has awarded Rs. 97,920/- under the said head.
6. I also find that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation of Rs. 10,500/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering, as the appellant has remained an indoor patient for 492 days in the Hospital, therefore, I am of the view that if additional amount of Rs.90,000/- is awarded under the head of pain, shock and suffering, the same would met ends of justice. It appears from the record, that the Tribunal while discussing the claim petition has observed that the appellant is entitled to Rs.25,000/- under the head of disfigurement, however, the said amount has not been awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appellant is also entitled to Rs.25,000/- under the head of disfigurement. Rest of the award is just and appropriate, therefore, they are not disturbed.
7. In that view of the matter, the appellant is entitled to additional amount of Rs. 1,20,760/- [ additional amount of Rs.5760/- under the head of future loss of income, additional amount of Rs.90,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering and Rs. 25,000/- under the head of disfigurement] alongwith interest at the rate of 7 ½ per cent 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.
pawan [K.S.JHAVERI,J.]