1. By way of First Appeal No. 80 of 2002, the original opponent no.2 - present appellant has challenged the award dated 20.03.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchmahals at Godhra in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1284 of 1994 whereby the Tribunal directed the original opponents to jointly and severally pay a compensation of Rs. 4,45,500/- to the original claimant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and proportionate costs.
1.1 The original claimant has filed First Appeal No. 84 of 2002 seeking enhancement of the compensation amount.
2. The original applicant -present respondent no. 1 had filed a claim petition seeking compensation for Rs. 8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicular accident which had occurred on 23.10.1994 Godhra bus stand when an S.T. bus bearing no. GJ 1 Z 3537 hit the claimant. The bus was being driven by original opponent no.1 at an excessive speed. Due to such rash and negligent driving, the claimant sustained serious injuries. The claimant therefore filed the aforesaid claim petition. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
3. Ms.
Roopal Patel, learned advocate appearing for the appellant Corporation submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased and thereby erred in granting more compensation. She submitted that the disability of 100% assessed by the Tribunal is on higher side when the evidence said only 40% of the whole body. She further submitted that since the claimant did not turn up for duty pursuant to the accident, he cannot be said to have incurred actual loss and therefore no amount under the said ought to have been granted.
4. Mr.
S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing for the original claimant supported the award of the Tribunal so far as liability of the appellant corporation is concerned. He however submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation which is on lower side. He submitted that the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased and the multiplier on a lower side. He submitted that the Tribunal has rightly assessed disability at 100% considering the decisions of the Apex Court and that the amount awarded under various heads also need to be enhanced. He submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded adequate amount under pain shock and suffering.
5. Heard learned advocates for the parties. The Tribunal has gone through the evidence in detail and has come to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the S.T bus driver. This court is in complete agreement with the same.
5.1 In the present case the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2500/-. The salary slip of the relevant period shows the income as Rs. 2000/- approx. Considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Smt Sarla Dixit & Anr Vs. Balwant Yadav & Ors, reported in 1996 AIR 1274 (=1996 SCC (3) 179) the average income comes to Rs. 3000/- per month and Rs. 36000/- per annum.
5.2 The Tribunal has assessed the disability at 100% which is on higher side. The disability of left lower limb was assessed at 80% which is 40% for body as a whole. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered 40% disability instead of 100%. Accordingly, the loss of income per annum shall come to Rs. 14,400/-.
5.3 I am of the view that, looking to the age of the claimant, the multiplier of 13 awarded in the present case is on lower side. The issue with regard to multiplier is already settled by the decision of Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 wherein 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."
5.4 In view of the aforesaid decision, the just and proper multiplier would be 15. Therefore the future loss of income would come to Rs. 2,16,000/- (Rs.14,400 x 15). The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,90,000/- under this head and therefore Rs. 1,74,000/- is awarded in excess to the claimant.
6. As regards the rest of the award, the amount under other heads are just and proper.
7. Accordingly, First Appeal no. 80 of 2002 is partly allowed. First Appeal No. 84 of 2002 is dismissed. The appellant-Corporation shall be entitled to refund of Rs. 1,74,000/- alongwith proportionate interest. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top