This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the M.V. Act') arise out of the judgment and award dated 30.03.2000 rendered in M.A.C.P. No.113/1990 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Morbi.
Short facts for which the claim petition is filed are as under :-
The injured Jakhu Vela Ahir received severe injuries over his person in the accident occurred on 21.10.1989 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Truck No.GQD-4844 which belonged to the opponent No.4 of the subject M.A.C.P. It is alleged that the the injured sustained fracture injuries including injuries over his both the legs, hand and over face and back resulting into multiple fractures and permanent disability. It is alleged that the the claimant was a cleaner with Tanker No.GTY-6361 which was being driven by deceased Mahadev Bijal Chavda. It is alleged that the claimant alongwith the deceased driver was returning from Bhuj after unloading oil and the same was driven by deceased driver on the left side of the road with moderate and controllable speed. When the said Tanker reached nearby 20 Kms. away from Morbi on Maliya National Highway Road at about 21.30 hours, at the same time, the opponent No.1 of M.A.C.P. came driving his Truck No.GQD-4844 in a rash and negligent manner coupled with an excessive speed and as he could not control the steering, went on the wrong side of the road and dashed and collided with the tanker and injured the claimant. In the result, driver Mahadev Bijal Chavda died and the claimant sustained aforesaid serious and grievous injuries over his person.
After considering the rival submissions, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.72,180/= with interest @ 12% per annum and cost from the date of the claim petition till realisation.
Learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that the claimant had sustained serious injuries over his right hand, chest, head, right leg and due to multiple fractures had to undergo major operations and iron plate was inserted by doing skin and bone grafting and therefore, the applicant suffered pain, shock and suffering for which the awarded amount is too less and that medical treatment undertaken by him and expenses incurred are also on the lower side. It is therefore, submitted that award of compensation deserves to be enhanced.
It is further submitted that the multiplier of 16 applied to the injured aged 30 years was also less in view of the decision rendered in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others V. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 6 Scale 129. It is therefore, submitted that the appeal be allowed accordingly by modifying and enhancing the claim of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
As against this, learned Counsel Ms. Sonal D. Vyas appearing for the insurance company would submit that the Tribunal has straightaway doubled the income of the claimant from Rs.600/= per month to Rs.1,200/= by applying the decision of General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C. Vs. Susamma Thomas reported in AIR 1994 SC Page 1631 in absence of any material on record. Besides, the claimant injured had taken treatment in Civil Hospital and therefore, he had hardly incurred any medical expenses. According to the learned Counsel, award under the head of 'pain, shock and suffering' by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by the Court.
Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case and upon hearing learned Counsels for the parties, and noticing the nature of injuries and multiple fractures, for which the claimant had to undergo various operations for insertion of steel rod with skin and bone grafting which had resulted into pain, shock and suffering of the claimant for which the Tribunal has only awarded Rs.7,500/=, I am of the view that this amount is on the lower side. At the same time, multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied in case of the claimant aged 30 years as per the decision rendered in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) (supra).
However the Claim Tribunal had believed the income of the claimant as Rs.600/= per month and raised it to Rs.1200/= per month for calculating future prospects.
In view of the above, I deem it just and proper if the award of compensation is modified and enhanced only qua the head of 'pain, shock and suffering' by raising from Rs.7,500/= to Rs.20,000/= (after the amount towards 'pain, shock and suffering' is enhanced, by applying the multiplier of 17 to the injured aged 30 years would go to 240 x 12 x 17) keeping the amount of compensation and other heads as per the award of the Tribunal. Since the total bodily disability was assessed as 20%, the amount for pain, shock and suffering deserves to be enhanced from Rs.7,500/= to Rs.20,000/=. Therefore, under different heads, the claimant is entitled for compensation as under :-
PARTICULARS AMOUNT (RS.) Income (Prospective) Less : Disability (20%) 1,200.00 240.00 Yearly Income x Multiplier (240 x 12 x 17) 48,960.00 Medical Expenses 10,000.00 Actual Loss of Income (6 months) 3,600.00 Pain, Shock and Suffering 20,0000.00 Special Diet 2,000.00 Conveyance Charges 1,000.00 Attendant Charges 2,000.00 Total 87,560.00 Less : Awarded Amount 72,180 Excess Amount 15,380.00 Against the total award of compensation, Rs.72,180/= already awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant claimant is entitled to enhance claim of to Rs.87,560/= and therefore, the difference of Rs.15,380/= is to be deposited and paid @ 7% per annum from the date of claim petition.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Anant S. Dave, J.) Caroline Top