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 17th July 2004 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Navrangpura in MAC Petition No.429 of 1994 whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,66,340/- to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 9% per cent from the date of application till realisation.
2 The short facts of the present appeal as per the claimant are that on the date of the accident i.e. on 4th March 1994 the original claimant was travelling in Matador van for going to Sanand from Chharodi and when the said Van reached village Virpur Patia on Viramgam Sanad road at about 4.30 PM, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Matador van, it fell down in a ditch on the right side of the road. In the said accident the claimant sustained injuries. Therefore, he filed claim petition before the Tribunal.
3 The Tribunal considering the income of the injured at Rs.2700 per month and treating the disability at 35% arrived at Rs.945 per month as future economic loss and Rs.11340 as annual future economic loss. Looking to the age of the injured of 35 years, he adopted the multiplier of 16 and awarded Rs.1,81,440/- towards future economic loss.
4 Learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that the disability of 35% is much higher and he submitted that the medical certificate issued by Dr Upadhyay has not examined the claimant at the relevant point time nor has treated him, but has only examined the claim for assessment of the disability. He further contended that the disability should have been assessed at 16% in view of the certificate issued by Dr Dhiren Maniyar. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the injured at Rs.2,700 despite there being no evidence whatsoever on record.
5 Learned counsel for the claimant has supported the judgment and order of the Tribunal and prayed that no interference is called for.
6. Dr Dhiren Maniyar has assessed the total disability of both upper and lower limbs was 32% and therefore the whole body disability would come to 16% where Dr Upadhyay has assessed the disability at 35%. Therefore, at the most the disability more than 18% should not have been adopted by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has committed an error in considering the whole body disability at 35%.
7. Assuming that the claimant was earning Rs.90 per day, it cannot be expected that he would get work daily and 30 days a month. Therefore, it would be safe to assume that he would work for 25 days in a month, his income would be Rs.2250 per month. To this an amount of Rs.1125 should be added towards his future prospects of income. Thus, his monthly income would be Rs.3375. Thus, the future economic loss would be Rs.607 per month and Rs.7290 per year. Looking to his age, the proper multiplier would be 16. Therefore, the amount under the head of future economic loss would come to Rs.116,554 whereas the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,81,440. Therefore, there is an excess amount of Rs.64,800, which is required to be refunded to the insurance company. No interference is warranted under other heads. Order accordingly.
7 In the result, the appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd