1. The appellant herein have challenged the award dated 22.04.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Main) Kutch in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 322 of 1992 so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 3,78,900/- as compensation with interest and costs.
2. It is the case of the appellant that on 05.02.1992 while the claimant was travelling in a Car bearing registration no. RST 1031 which was being driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner which dashed with a scooter as a result of which he sustained serious injuries. The appellant therefore filed claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
Mr.
Mehta, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Shah for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in adopting multiplier of 16 which is on lower side. He submitted that having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121, the Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier of 18.
4. Mr.
Shah, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. He submitted that the amounts awarded under various heads more particularly medical expenses, transportation etc is on higher side.
5. Before proceeding further it is required to be noted that the issues with regard to multiplier is already settled by the decision of Apex Court. In the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 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."
5.1 In the present case, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the actual income of the claimant at Rs. 750/- per month. Nothing is pointed out to take a different figure in that regard. The annual income accordingly comes to Rs. 9000/- per annum.
6. I am of the view that, looking to the age of the claimant, the multiplier of 16 is on higher side. Multiplier of 18 is just and proper in the present case. Therefore the future loss of income would come to Rs. 1,62,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 1,44,000/- under this head. Therefore the claimants are entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 18000/- under the head of future loss of income.
6.1 As far as the other heads are concerned, the same seems to be on higher side. However, in view of the fact that no cross objections have been filed by learned advocate for the respondent, this court is not inclined to disturb the same.
7. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The appellants shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 18000/- 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// Top