1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 24.08.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad in M.A.C.P. No.62/1992 whereby, the claim petition was partly allowed and the appellant, original claimant, was awarded total compensation of 1,77,500/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization and proportionate costs as against the total claim of Rs.4.00 Lacs.
2. The facts in brief are that on 17.06.1991 at about 1945 hrs. while the appellant, original plaintiff, was returning home on his Scooter bearing registration No. GUC 2919, he met with an accident on the Ambawadi – Nehrunagar Road in Ahmedabad with another Scooter bearing registration No. GJ-1-H-7591 driven by original opponent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 herein and insured with respondent no.3-Insurance Company. In the said accident, the appellant sustained severe bodily injuries. He, therefore, filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, which came to be partly allowed by way of the impugned award. By this appeal, the appellant, original claimant, has prayed for enhancement of the amount of compensation.
3. Mr. U.P. Vyas learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in computing income under the head of future loss. He submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the aspect of rise in future income, as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121. He further submitted that the Tribunal has seriously erred in deducting 50% amount towards future rise in income, which is illegal and inappropriate. He, therefore, submitted that the compensation awarded to the appellant deserves to be enhanced as per the latest law on the subject.
4. Though served, none appears on behalf of respondent no.2.
5. Ms. Megha Jani learned counsel for respondent no.3 supported the impugned award and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% amount since there was an actual increase in the income. She has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajkumar v. Ajaykumar, 2011 A.C.J. 01.
6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. In order to prove income, the appellant, original claimant, had produced on record the Returns for the Assessment Year 1989 – 1990 and the Statement of Income for the Years 1990 – 1991 to 1992 – 1993 along with certain other documents. From the above documents, it appears that in the year in which the accident took place, i.e. 1991 – 1992, the annual income of the appellant was Rs.84,960/-, whereas it was Rs.67,120/- for the period of 1990 – 1991. For the Assessment Year 1989 – 1990, the annual income of the appellant was Rs.1,09,952/-. However, as per the Statement of Income for the year 1992 – 1993, the annual income of the appellant was Rs.1,36, 559/-. Thus, it is evident that the income of the appellant had not reduced after the accident in question which occurred in the year 1991. Considering the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and when it is evident from the record that the earning capacity of the claimant has in fact increased, the aspect of rise in income is not required to be considered in the instant case.
7. It is a matter of record that the appellant sustained permanent disability of 17% for the body as a whole. However, while calculating future loss of income, the Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier of 9 instead of 10. By adopting the multiplier of 9, total future loss of income would come to Rs.1,83,600/- [1700 x 12 = 20400, 20400 x 9 = 1,83,600]. I find that the Tribunal has deducted 50% amount from the total income under the above head on the ground that there has been a rise in future income. In my opinion, the said deduction made by the Tribunal is completely erroneous, illegal and contrary to the law on the subject. The Tribunal ought not to have made such deduction when the aspect of rise in future income has not been considered. In view of the same, the appellant is entitled for Rs.1,83,600/- in aggregate under the head of future loss of income. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.1,02,000/- under the said head and hence, the claimant shall be entitled for additional amount of Rs.81,600/- under the head of future loss of income.
8. The decision relied upon by learned counsel for respondent no.3-Insurance Company shall not apply in view of the fact that the assessment of monetary loss would be more in the present case. So far as income awarded under the other heads are concerned, the same are just and appropriate and hence, are not disturbed.
9. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellant, original claimant, shall be entitled for additional compensation of Rs.81,600/-, over and above the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*