1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award of the M.A.C.T. (Auxi.), Kachchh-Bhuj, dated 05.10.2010, rendered in M.A.C.P. No.140 of 1994, whereby the tribunal awarded Rs.80,300/- towards compensation along with 12 per cent interest.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that on account of a vehicular accident which took place on 10.10.1993, respondent No.1, who was working as a cleaner on a tempo driven by respondent No.2, owned by respondent No 3 and insured by the present appellant, received severe bodily injuries. He, therefore, filed the aforesaid claim petition, wherein the tribunal passed the impugned judgment award. Hence, the present appeal.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has raised various contentions. He submitted that the tribunal erred in passing the impugned judgment and award. The tribunal failed to appreciate the material on record in its true perspective. the tribunal erred while assessing the disability sustained by respondent No.1. The amount awarded by the tribunal is highly exaggerated, and therefore, he has prayed to allow the present appeal.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 has opposed the appeal and has prayed to dismiss the same, as being without merit. Though served, none appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. As regards the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants with regard to the liability, amount awarded by the tribunal towards compensation etc. are concerned, the tribunal has elaborately discussed the evidence in detail, more particularly, the evidence in the form of FIR, Panchnama etc. which support the case put forward by the original claimants. I have also gone through the impugned order and I find that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under different heads, except the head of loss of future income, is just and appropriate and in consonance with the evidence on record and the law on the subject.
6. Insofar as the aspect of loss of future income is concerned, according to respondent No.1, on account of the alleged accident he has sustained disability to the extent of 24 per cent. In support of his say, he produced medical certificate(Exhibit-50) issued by one Dr. Suresh V. Rudani and also examined him. In his evidence, Dr. Rudani stated that respondent No.1 has sustained disability to the extent of 24 per cent of lower extremity. Thus, it is clear that the disability certified by Dr. Rudani was not towards body as a whole. Hence, the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that tribunal committed an error while assessing future loss of income by taking disability at 24 per cent of the body as a whole, and hence, the said contention requires to be accepted. Since, the 24 per cent disability is of lower extremity, the disability towards body as a whole would come to 12 per cent i.e. nearly half of what the tribunal has assessed. The tribunal has awarded Rs.55,300/- under the head of loss of future of income, taking 24 per cent disability of the body as a whole. Now, since the disability is reduced to 50 per cent i.e. 12 per cent of the body as a whole, respondent No.1 shall be entitled to Rs. (55300/2)=27,650/- under the head of loss of future of income. The appellant shall be entitled to refund of remaining amount i.e. Rs.(55300 - 27650)=27650/-.
7. In the result, the appeal is PARTLY ALLOWED. Respondent No.1 be paid Rs.27,650/- under the head of loss of future of income instead of Rs.55,300/-. The appellant-insurance company be refunded Rs.27,650/- along with interest, costs, if any. The judgment and award of the tribunal impugned in this appeal stands MODIFIED to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
Umesh/ (K.S. JHAVERI,J.)