1. The appellant herein, original claimant, had preferred M.A.C.P. No.1091/1999 u/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming total compensation of Rs.2.00 Lacs in connection with the vehicular accident that took place on 24.10.1999 involving an ST Bus bearing registration No. GJ-1-Z-3630. The said claim petition was allowed in part by judgment and award dated 31.01.2003 whereby, a total compensation of Rs.44,000/- was awarded along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs.
2. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the appellants have preferred the present appeal for enhancement.
3. It has been mainly contended on behalf of the appellant that the Tribunal seriously erred in assessing the monthly income and permanent disability of the deceased while computing compensation. It is contended that the amounts awarded under the head of pain, shock and suffering is also on the lower side. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be enhanced. In support of the submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Baghel learned counsel for respondent supported the impugned award and submitted that the compensation awarded is just and appropriate and hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Before the Tribunal, the appellant had deposed that his monthly income was Rs.5,000/-. However, no cogent documentary evidence was produced by the appellant to prove his income. For the purpose of computing future loss of income, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.2,500/-, which, in my opinion, is just and appropriate.
6. As regards the contention of disability is concerned, it is to be noted that the Doctor concerned has assessed the partial permanent functional impairment at 42%, The disability in question is not permanent in nature but, is a functional disability. On the basis of the medical evidence on record, the Tribunal assessed the permanent disability at 15% for the body as a whole, which, in my opinion, is just and appropriate. However, I find that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on the lower side considering the age of appellant at the time of accident. The appropriate multiplier is 9 in view of the decision in Sarla Verma's case (supra). Thus, by adopting the said multiplier, the total amount under the head of future loss of income would come to Rs.40,500/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.31,500/- under the said head and hence, the appellant shall be entitled for additional amount of Rs.9,500/- under the head of future loss of income.
7. So far as compensation awarded under the other heads are concerned, the same are just, legal and appropriate and also in consonance with the law on the subject. Hence, I find no reasons to disturb the same.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellant, original claimant, is entitled for additional compensation of Rs.9,000/- [Rupees Nine thousand only] along with interest at the rate of 07.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization, over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 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/*