1. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 16.09.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Jamnagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 471 of 1993 so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 83,250/- as compensation with interest and costs.
2. It is the case of the appellant that on 17.04.1993 while the appellant had parked his truck on the road side and while he was cleaning the glass of the truck, another truck bearing registration No. GJ-3T-1379 which was being driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner dashed with the stationary truck as a result of which the appellant was thrown off the truck and he sustained serious injuries. The appellant therefore filed claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
3. Mr. Mehul Shah, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in apportioning 75%-25% contributory negligence on the part of the opponent no. 1 and the appellant. He submitted that the Tribunal holding that the appellant's monthly income is only Rs. 1000/- even though he earned Rs. 2000/- per month. He submitted that therefore the actual loss of income as well as future loss of income awarded is on lower side. He submitted that having regard to the fact that the appellant was only 24 years old the Tribunal ought to have taken prospective income into account.
3.1 Mr. Shah further submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded adequate amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering. He has also submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded more amount under the head of attendance, special diet and transportation.
4. Before proceeding further it is required to be noted that the issues with regard to income and deduction by way of personal expenses are already settled by the decisions of Apex Court. In the case of Smt Sarla Dixit & Anr Vs. Balwant Yadav & Ors, reported in 1996 AIR 1274 (=1996 SCC (3) 179) it is held as under:
“... The multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”
5. Thus considering the formula laid down in the case of Smt. Sarla Dixit (supra) the income of the appellant is to be calculated. In the present case the Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant at Rs. 1000/-. The Tribunal ought to have assessed the income at Rs. 1500/- per month. The said income should be doubled and actual gross income should be added. By doubling, the amount would come to Rs.3000/- and by adding current income of Rs. 1500/- it would come to Rs. 4500/-. Average monthly income can be derived by dividing the same by 2. Therefore the average income would come to Rs. 2250/-.
5.1 In the present case the disability is 30% and therefore the loss of income per month shall come to Rs. 675/- and Rs. 8100/- per annum.
5.2 As per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), I am of the view that, looking to the age of the claimant, the multiplier of 15 awarded in the present case is on lower side. The just and proper multiplier would be 18. Therefore the future loss of income would come to Rs.1,45,800 (Rs. 8100 x 18). The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 81000/- under the said head and therefore Rs. 64,800/- is required to be paid in addition.
6. As regards the rest of the awards under various heads, the amount awarded under the head of pain shock and suffering is on lower side. Considering the period of hospitalisation and injuries, an additional amount of Rs. 15000/- is required to be awarded under the said head. Similarly, an additional amount of Rs. 4000/- is awarded under the head of actual loss of income considering income of Rs. 1500/- per month for four months.
7. Therefore in all, an additional amount of Rs. 83,800/- is required to be paid to the appellant. However, the appellant shall be entitled to only 75% of the same considering 25% contributory negligence on his part. Therefore, he shall be entitled to additional Rs. 62850/- as compensation.
8. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 62,850/- alongwith interest at 7.5% from the date of application till realisation. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//