1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) is filed against the judgment and award dated 18.03.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux) Rajkot District at Gondal in M.A.C.P. No.453 of 1995.
2. The appellant- original claimant seeks enhancement of the awarded amount of compensation by applying a higher multiplier on the basis of decision of Sarla Verma (Smt) And Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court 121 in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Short facts for which the claim petition was filed are as under:-
That the appellant on the fateful day i.e. 22.06.1995, was going to the Pharmaceutical Factory situated on the road leading from Gondal to Rajkot with his Goods Carrier auto rickshaw bearing No.GTX-8155. The applicant was working as a rickshaw driver and at the relevant time, he was going to the Pharmaceutical Factory of his employer with the auto rickshaw of his employer. That the applicant was driving the auto rickshaw at a moderate speed on the left side of the road according to traffic rules. When the applicant reached near Yogi Laundry opposite Swaminarayan Temple, at that time, S.T. Bus No.GJ-1-Z-2032 was coming from the opposite direction at an excessive speed and the driver of the bus was driving the bus rashly and negligently so as to endanger the human life. The S.T. Bus was for en- route to Rajkot-Bagasara as per the name plate fixed on the front side of the bus. As stated in the petition, due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, the S.T. Bus dashed with the auto rickshaw which resulted into vehicular accident. The applicant sustained very serious bodily injuries including fracture of Femur bone in his right leg, injuries on the wrist of left hand and injury on his neck, lower lip, right eye and in the left leg and other parts of the body.
4. Upon ascertaining the medical evidence and other attending circumstances, the Claims Tribunal determined the disability of the injured to the extent of 22% and after considering other aspects regarding income etc., the Tribunal awarded the total compensation amount of Rs.1,05,280/- under different heads along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount of compensation is realised.
5. In this appeal, the learned advocate for the appellant has mainly raised the ground of incorrect application of multiplier by the Tribunal. Since the injured was aged about 30 years, multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied as per the decision of Sarla Verma's Case (Supra). So far as the above proposition of applying multiplier is concerned, no dispute is raised by the respondent, but it is submitted that the appellant-claimant was also equally negligent and contributory negligence of 10% is attributed to him, is not proper. It is therefore, submitted that the award and judgment of the Tribunal needs no interference.
6. Upon overall consideration of facts and circumstances, perusal of the record and arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 15 to the injured aged about 30 years, as the same is contrary to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra). As no other contentions are seriously raised, I am of the view that the income determined and so assessed by the Claims Tribunal is to be multiplied by the above multiplier of 17. The appellant- claimant is entitled to Rs.80,784/- (4,752 x 17), as against the amount Rs.71,280/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of Loss of future income. Hence, the respondent-Corporation is directed to pay the balance amount of compensation of Rs.9,504/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is realised.
The appeal is thus, partly allowed.
(Anant S. Dave, J.)
PIYUSH