1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 27th July 1999 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Court No.19 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.109 of 1992 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2 lacs along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till realization.
2.0 On 14.4.1992 at about 7 p.m. the claimant was returning from Dholka towards Ahmedabad. When he reached near Pravinnagar AMTS Bus Stand on his scooter Bajaj M 80, one Mini Luxury Bus came in excessive speed and knocked him down. He sustained serious injuries and ultimately the right hand of the claimant was amputated from above elbow level. Hence he filed the aforesaid claim petition wherein the aforesaid award came to be filed. The present appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the income of the claimant should have been Rs.3000/ per month; that there was 100% disability and that the Tribunal ought to have awarded higher amount towards pain, shock and suffering and medical expenses.
4.0 As regards the income is concerned, there was no proof on record that the claimant was earning a sum of Rs.3000/. It was difficult to believe that the income of the claimant was to the tune of Rs.60 to 70,000/. Further the income of the claimant as an Accountant from M/s Sameer Transport Company was unbelievable. Therefore in absence of any proof the Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.2000/ per month.
5.0 In para 7 of the judgement the Tribunal has discussed the injuries in detail and has come to the conclusion that the claimant has sustained 50% permanent disability on the body as a whole. Learned Advocate for the appellant is not in a position to point out anything from the record to take a different view of the matter. Even the multiplier of 13 adopted by the Tribunal is just and proper. Having considered the matter in depth I am of the view that the amounts awarded under other heads are also just and proper and no interference is warranted.
6.0 In the premises aforesaid, I do not find any merits in the appeal.
The same is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*