1. By way of filing this appeal, the appellants – original claimants have challenged the judgment and award dated 23rd February 2000 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Main), Jamnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.591 of 1995 whereby the Tribunal was pleased to award Rs.1,40,000 towards compensation to the claimants as against the claim of Rs.3,50,000. 2 The short facts of the present case are that on the date of the incident, I.e. on 30.10.1993 at about 2.45 PM minor claimant was travelling as a water supplier on tanker No.GJ 10 T 7325. At that time, due to negligence on the part of the driver of the said Tanker, it came in contact with live wire of GEB due to which the boy thrown off the tanker and thereby received serious injuries. The claimant, therefore, filed aforesaid claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. The Tribunal vide its judgment and award awarded Rs.1,40,000/- to the claimants.
3 Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Main), Jamnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.591 of 1995, the appellant – original claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation.
4 While considering the case the Tribunal in paragraphs 19 and 20 of its judgment has observed as under:
“19. The claimant was hardly 15 years old at the time of accident and in future he would not have stuck to earn only Rs.500 per month. Considering the job of the claimant as a labourer, I notionally assess his prospective income at Rs.1,500 per month. Taking the mean of past and future income of the claimant, the average monthly income of the claimant would work out at Rs.1,000 per month. Now, as discussed earlier, taking 55% permanent partial disability for the body as a whole, there would be loss of Rs.550 per month and Rs.6600 per annum. Considering the age of the applicant at the time of the accident, I propose to adopt 15 multiplier and therefore future loss of income would work out at Rs.99,000 (6600 x 15).
20. As regards compensation for loss of marital enjoyment, there is no evidence of medical officer to prove that the applicant cannot enjoy marital life due to the burn injuries sustained by him in this accident. However, it can be said that due to deformity of skin sustained by the applicant due to accidental burn injuries, he could not have a match of his own choice and he will have to accept any match available to him. In the circumstances, I award Rs.9,000 for loss of not having a life partner of his own choice, due to the accidental burn injuries.”
In my view, the Tribunal has taken the correct view and no interference is required. The appeal is devoid of merits. The appeal has no merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the same is dismissed.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd