1. This is an appeal whereby the appellant- original claimant has challenged the judgment and award of the M.A.C.T.(Main), Vadodara, dated 16.04.1990, rendered in M.A.C.P. No.75 of 1987, whereby the tribunal awarded Rs.65,400/- along with 12 per cent interest.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
On account a vehicular accident, which took place on 17.01.1987, the appellant, herein, received severe bodily injuries and sustained disability. He, therefore, filed the above- mentioned claim petition, wherein the tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award. Hence, the present appeal.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has raised various contentions. He submitted that the tribunal erred in passing the impugned judgment and award. The tribunal failed to appreciate the material on record in its true perspective. The tribunal wrongly assessed the disability sustained by the appellant at 25 per cent of the body as a whole. The amounts awarded by the tribunal under different heads are meager, and therefore, he has prayed to allow the present appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Though served, none appears on behalf of the respondent.
5. The case of the appellant before the tribunal was that on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1, he received severe bodily injuries, and hence, he is entitled to claim compensation. To prove the factum of accident, the appellant entered the witness box and his evidence was recorded vide Exhibit-21, wherein he stated that both the rear wheels of the truck were detached. The appellant was not cross-examined on the said aspect. Moreover, respondent No.1, driver of the offending vehicle also pleaded guilty before the trial Court in criminal case, which was lodged in connection with the accident in question. The tribunal, hence, rightly held that the appellant is entitled to claim compensation.
6. To prove the aspect of disability, the appellant examined one Dr. Ravindra Zhala, who stated that looking to the work of the appellant i.e. loading and unloading on truck, his disability should be considered at 100 per cent in view of the fact that there was shortening of leg and limitation of movement of leg. Dr. Jhala, further, submitted in the cross examination that in case of non-labour, the disability would come to 50 per cent. However, the tribunal assessed the disability sustained by him at only 25 per cent. Hence, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant, with regard to disability requires to be accepted. Taking into consideration the fact that there is shortening of leg and restriction in movement, it would be just and proper if the disability is assessed at 50 per cent of the body as a whole.
7. Insofar as the aspect of income is concerned, according to the appellant he was earning Rs.750/- per month. However, it is an admitted position that the appellant did not produce any evidence to substantiate his say. The tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the appellant Rs.600/-. In that view of the matter, here, it would be relevant to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in “SMT. SARLA DIXIT & ANR. VS. BALVANT YADAV & ORS.”, reported in 1996(3) SCC 179, wherein the Apex Court has laid down as to what would be a just and fair compensation. Hence, applying the ratio laid down in the said case, the monthly income of the appellant would come to Rs. [(600 X 2)=1200, (1200 + 600)=1800, (1800/2)]=900/-. Since, the appellant has sustained the disability to the extent of 50%, the monthly loss in income would come to Rs.(900 – 50%)=450/- and the annual loss of income would come to Rs.(450 X 12)=5400/-.
8. The appellant, at the time of accident was aged about 20 years and the tribunal has applied the multiplier of 20 which appears to be on higher side. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the multiplier of 16 is applied. Thus, applying the said multiplier, the future loss of income would come to Rs.(5400 X 16)=86,400/-. Since, the tribunal has already awarded Rs.40,000/- under the head of loss of future income, the appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.(86,400 – 40,000)=46,400/-.
9. As regards the amounts awarded under the other heads are concerned, the same being just and reasonable, requires no interference.
10. As regards the rate of interest is concerned, the tribunal has awarded 12 per cent interest on the original amount of award. However, taking into consideration the prevalent rate of interest, it would be just and reasonable, if the additional amount towards compensation is granted with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum.
11. In the result, the appeal is PARTLY ALLOWED. The appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.46,400/- towards compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application, till its realization. The judgment and awarded impugned in this appeal stands MODIFIED to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI,J.) Umesh/