1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.05.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, ( AIII), Nadiad, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 687 of 1991 whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation in the sum of Rs. 35200/ with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till realization.
2.0 On 10.04.1991 the claimant was driving his motor cycle No. GJ 7B 1440 near CP college and when he reached near the place of accident, all of sudden a rickshaw bearing No. GQG 55 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the motor cycle. The claimant sustained fracture of fourth and fifth metacarpal bone com minuted fracture in patella and other injuries. He therefore, filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal wherein the aforesaid award came to be passed. Hence the present appeal has been filed at the instance of the claimant for enhancement.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in attributing 20% negligence to the appellant and 80% negligence to the driver of autorickshaw; that the driver of auto rickshaw has not come in witness box and he has not filed any reply in the matter.
4.0 Learned advocate for the appellant further contended that the an amount of Rs. 23400/ awarded towards future loss of income is on lower side.
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 respective parties and perused the documents on record.
7.0 As far as negligence is concerned, the panchnama produced at Exh. 19 which shows that motorcycle was damaged to the extent of Rs.3000/. In crossexamination the claimant has stated that the place of accident was not full of traffic. He has denied that both the vehicles were collided on middle of road. He has denied his negligence. The driver of the rickshaw did not appear before the court nor he has filed any reply and therefore, the Tribunal held that both the vehicles were not collided on middle of road, the contributory negligence of claimant is assessed at 20% whereas contributory negligence of rickshaw driver is assessed at 80%. In view of the above discussion I am of the view that the Tribunal has rightly fixed the negligence.
8.0 As far as income is concerned, the income assessed at Rs. 1000/ per month is on lower side. Therefore, I am of view that ends of justice would be met by considering the income at Rs. 1500/ per month. As far as disability is concerned, from the deposition of the claimant, it is established that he sustained fracture on right leg and right hand. Medical certificate produced at Exh. 20 shows that he had compound fracture of right tibia and also fracture of metacarpal bone. Dr. Patel has assessed permanent functional disability of the grievous injury at 15% body as a whole but the claimant has passed a purshish at Exh. 26 to consider permanent functional disability at 13%. By considering the income of Rs. 1500/ per month and disability to the extent of 13% body as a whole, the monthly loss would come to Rs. 195/ and annual loss would come to Rs. 2340/. The claimant was 23 years at the time of accident. The multiplier of 15 applied by the learned Tribunal is on lower side and it should be 18. By applying multiplier of 18 years in view of the principles laid down in case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, the future loss of income would come to Rs. 42120/. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 23400/ which is on lower side. Therefore, there would be additional amount of Rs. 18720/.
9.0 The Tribunal awarded Rs. 3000/ as actual loss of three months, Rs. 6000/ under the head of medical expense, Rs. 12000/ towards pain, shock and suffering which in my opinion are just and proper.
10.0 In the premises aforesaid, it is held that the appellant shall be entitled to a further sum of Rs.18720/ towards future loss of income 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 application till realization. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*