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 11th June 1992 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Godhra in MAC Petition No.65 of 1988 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant.
2 The short facts of the present appeal are that while the claimant was going towards his home by walk from hotel of his brother situate at village Tuva, at that time, a motor truck bearing No.GRY 4259 driven by original opponent No.1 dashed with the claimant due to which he sustained injuries. In the said accident, his right upper limb from the root of the shoulder was amputated. He, therefore, filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.3,65,000 under different heads.
3 On the point of income, the Tribunal has considered income of the claimant including future economic prospects at Rs.1000 per month and as he sustained 50% loss of earning income, Rs.500 per month and Rs.6,000 per annum was considered as future economic loss. Considering the age of the claimant, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 15 and thereby assessed Rs.90,000 towards future economic loss. Over and above, the Tribunal has also held that the claimant is entitled to get Rs.5,000 under the head of actual loss of income, Rs.5,000 towards medicines and treatment charges, and Rs.20,000 towards Pain, Shock and Suffering. Thus, the claimant is entitled to get in all Rs.120,000 as compensation.
4 However, the Tribunal has observed at page 9 of the impugned judgment and award as under:-
“... From panchnama exh. 26, the village Tuva is on National Highway and Kripalu Pipe Factory is at a distance of 2 funrlongs from Bazar, if the victim was going on foot and if vehicle is oncoming and dashes while giving way to its oncoming vehicle then his right hand side could be touched only if the opposite vehicle totally comes on wrong side (I.e. its right hand side) which is not a case. Alternatively, if he was on the other side, then, oncoming vehicle, if dashes him, his left hand side would be affected. Thus, the entire narration is incapable of reconciling the injury to the victim noticed in medical examination. And it also creates doubt whether the injury is caused in this vehicular accident even otherwise, he can definitely notice at least the truck and describe it immediately. On the contrary, if we consider the dicrepancy of the the evidence of claimant and narration if FIR by his own brother, it is difficult to accept the version that the claimant was returning from Godhra after performing duty “ 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