1. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 13.10.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Vadodara in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 983 of 1990 so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 1,48,700/- as compensation with interest and costs.
2. The appellant had filed claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in a vehicular accident on 30.04.1989 involving a truck tempo bearing registration no. CQB 4277 driven by the original opponent no. 1. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
3. Mr. Pandya, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that the appellant's monthly income. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have taken prospective income into account. He further submitted that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on lower side considering his age. He has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121.
3.1 Mr. Pandya has further contended that the Tribunal has seriously erred in assessing the disability of the appellant at 29% only for awarding compensation. He submitted that though the disability assessed by the doctor is 57%, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the disability at 29%. He further submitted that the amount awarded under the head of pain, shock and suffering is also on lower side.
4. Mr. Sunil Parikh, learned advocate appearing for the respondent insurance company supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the same does not call for any interference by this court having been passed after due consideration of the evidence on record.
5. In the present case the Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant at Rs. 2000/- which is just and proper considering the vocation of the appellant. The prospective income cannot be assessed in such cases. In the present case the disability is considered by the Tribunal at 29% for body as a whole considering the permanent partial disability at 58% which is just and proper. Accordingly, the loss of income comes to Rs. 580/- per month and Rs. 6980/- per annum.
6.1 In the case of Sarla Verma & Ors (supra) 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.”
6.2 As per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), I am of the view that, looking to the age of the claimant, the multiplier of 15 awarded in the present case is on lower side. The just and proper multiplier would be 17. Therefore the future loss of income would come to Rs.1,18,660/- (Rs.6980 x 17). The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,04,700/- under the said head and therefore an additional amount of Rs. 13,960/- is required to be awarded.
7. As regards the rest of the award under various heads, the same is just and proper and does not call for any interference. However, it is pointed out by learned advocate for the respondent that the order dated 17.05.1999 was passed in review application which was allowed by the Tribunal. However the award produced on record has not been corrected to that extent. The order dated 17.05.1999 on page 41 allowing the review application is hereby considered by this Court and the award is required to be modified accordingly.
8. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 13,960/- alongwith interest at 7.5% from the date of application till realisation. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//