1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 30.03.1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mehsana in M.A.C.P. No.120/1987 whereby, the claim petition was partly allowed and the appellant, original claimant, was awarded total compensation of Rs.22,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization and proportionate costs.
2. The facts in brief are that on 03.04.1986 while the appellant, original claimant, was going on his bicycle, a Truck bearing registration no. GTE-8767, driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3-Insurance Company, dashed the bicycle. In the said accident, the appellant sustained severe bodily injuries. He, therefore, filed the claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.1.50 Lacs, which came to be partly allowed by way of the impugned award. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the appellant has preferred the present appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. The main ground under which the appellant has sought enhancement of the amount of compensation is that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on the lower side and also not in consonance with the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) SCC 121. It has also been submitted that the disability assessed by the Tribunal is also erroneous as the same is contrary to the medical evidence on record. In support of the submission on the issue of improper appreciation of the medical evidence on record by the Tribunal, the appellant has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of (M/s.) Prakash Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Krishnasingh Satasingh Kaaniyara and another, 1993 (1) GLH 149.
4. It appears from the record that in the claim petition filed before the Tribunal, the appellant-original claimant had stated his monthly income to be Rs.500/-. However, in his deposition, he had stated that his monthly income was some where between Rs.600/- to Rs.700/-. It is a matter of record that the appellant had not produced any documentary evidence to prove his income. In absence of the same and considering the fact that the appellant was doing labour work, the monthly income of Rs.500/- assessed by the Tribunal is just and appropriate.
5. However, so far as the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is concerned, the same is on the lower side since the appellant was aged around 22 years at the time of accident. As per the decision rendered in Sarla Verma's case (supra), the appropriate multiplier would be 18. As regards the permanent disability sustained by the appellant is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed it at 11% for the body as a whole. The appellant had sustained grievous injury on his right leg and the Doctor had assessed the permanent disability at 22% for the lower part of the body. Considering the medical evidence on record, the permanent disability assessed by the Tribunal is appropriate. In view of the above, the appellant shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.11,880/- under the head of loss of earning capacity but, since the Tribunal has awarded Rs.9,900/- only under the said head, the appellant shall be entitled for additional compensation of Rs.1,980/-. The amount awarded under the other heads are not disturbed.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellant shall be entitled for additional compensation of Rs.1,980/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*