1 By way of filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellant – insurance company has challenged the judgment and order dated 23rd April 1998 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Valsad at Navsari in MAC Petition No.359 of 1990 whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant.
2 The short facts of the present appeal are that injured – Harendrabhai was going to Vapi from Bhilad on 26th March 1990 on Scooter bearing No.MGO 3034 along with one Narendrasinh. The said scooter was being driven by Harendrabhai and when the said Scooter reached Daman Ganga Bridge on NH No.8, offending truck bearing NO.GRQ 1042 came from opposite direction and dashed with the Scooter due to which both of them were flung into air and fell down on road and thereby receiving serious injuries. Injured Harendrabhai filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.13,17,000 under different heads, but, later on, restricted his claim to Rs.8 lakhs.
3 On the point of contributory negligence the Tribunal has discussed evidence in paragraph 14 of the judgment and held the Scooterist to be negligent to the extent of 25% for the occurrence of the accident and 75% to the Driver of the Truck. On the point of income, the Tribunal has considered income of the claimant including future economic prospects at Rs.10000 per month and as he sustained 20% permanent partial disability, he was entitled to Rs.2000 per month and Rs.24000 per annum towards future economic loss. Considering the age of the claimant, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 15 and thereby awarded Rs.3,60,000 towards future economic loss. Over and above, the Tribunal has also awarded Rs.18,000 under the head of actual loss of income, Rs.100,000 towards medicines and treatment charges, Rs.35,000 towards Pain, Shock and Suffering, Rs.10,000 towards transportation and conveyance charges. Thus, in all Rs.523,000 was awarded to the claimant. However, though the Tribunal has held in paragraph 15 of the judgment that the Driver of the Scooterist was also responsible for the accident to the extent of 25%, he awarded Rs.3,92,250/-.
4 The findings recorded by the Tribunal are just and proper and no interference is called for. The view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper. The appeal is meritless. Hence, dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd