1. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 02.02.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Rajkot in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 413 of 1993 so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 87,800/- as compensation with interest and costs.
2. It is the case of the appellant that on 12.04.1993 the appellant was waiting for a bus at the bust stand when a scooter bearing registration No. GAY 9853 which was being driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner hit the appellant as a result of which he sustained injuries. The appellant therefore filed claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 4 lakhs. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
3. Ms. Bela Prajapati, learned advocate assisted by Mr. Daxay Patel for Mr. Mangukiya for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that the appellant's monthly income is only Rs. 4000/- even though he earned Rs. 5200/- per month. He submitted that having regard to the fact that the deceased was only 26 years old the multiplier of 5 is on lower side and that it should have been 18.
4. Learned advocate appearing for Mr. Hardik Rawal for the respondent supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that no interference is called for.
5. Having gone through the documents on record, it transpires that the Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the appellant at the time of accident at Rs. 4000/-. Nothing is pointed before this Court to take a contrary view. The disability assessed at 17% is also just and proper. Therefore the monthly loss shall come to Rs. 680/- and Rs. 8160 per annum. However considering the age of the appellant the multiplier adopted is on lower side.
6. In the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 it is held as under:
“The multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M- 17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years and M- 13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M- 9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”
7. As per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), I am of the view that, looking to the age of the claimant, the multiplier of 5 awarded in the present case is on lower side. The just and proper multiplier would be 18. Therefore the future loss of income would come to Rs. 1,46,880/- (Rs.8160 x 18). The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 40,800/- under the said head and therefore an additional amount of Rs. 1,06,080/- is required to be awarded.
8. As regards the rest of the awards under various heads are just and proper and no interference is required.
9. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 1,06,080/- alongwith interest at 7.5% from the date of application till realisation. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//