1. Heard learned advocates for the appellant and perused the papers on record.
2. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 19.09.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bhuj, Kachchh in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 954 of 1996 so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 62,600/- as compensation with interest at 8% per annum.
3. It is the case of the appellant that on 10.02.1996 while the appellant was standing near the road, a tempo bearing registration no. GJ-12-U-7330 being driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner hit him as a result of which the appellant sustained injuries on the left various body parts. The appellant therefore filed claim petition to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
4. Mr.
Shah, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the entire facts of the case and evidence on record and thereby erred in awarding adequate amount under various heads. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have assessed the functional disability of at least 27% as assessed in the disability certificate Ex. 61. He submitted that the assessment of 12% disability by the lower court is without any basis. Mr. Shah has submitted that the Tribunal has materially erred in considering the future loss of income to be only Rs. 30600/- which is against the evidence on record.
5. As a result of hearing and perusal of records, this court is of the view that considering the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant sustained injuries as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the original opponent no. 1. The Tribunal has assessed the disability of the whole body at 12%. Prima facie the same seems to be on lower side. The appropriate disability of the whole body ought to have been taken at 13.5% when the permanent disability assessed by the doctor is around 27%. Therefore considering the income of Rs. 15000 per annum as it is, the loss per annum comes to Rs. 2025/-. The Tribunal has applied multiplier of 17 which is just and proper. Accordingly, the future loss of income shall come to Rs. 34425/-. However, the Tribunal has granted only Rs. 30600/- under this head and therefore Rs. 3825/- is required to be paid in addition.
6. It is clarified that this Court has passed the aforesaid order exparte in view of the fact that the amount of difference is meagre and the insurance company if called for to contest shall have to spend an amount more than Rs. 3845/-. It shall not be in the interest of justice, time and money to simply admit this appeal or issue notice to the other side when there is an error apparent on the face of the records, more particularly when the amount for enhancement is quite small. Considering the error apparent on the face of the record, the aforesaid view is taken exparte and therefore if the insurance company feels aggrieved by the aforesaid order, it shall be open to them to approach this court for modification/clarification of the said order.
7. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is partly allowed exparte. The appellant shall be granted an additional amount of Rs. 3845/- at 7.5% rate of interest from the date of application of main claim petition till realisation. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top