1 By way of filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellants - original claimant has challenged the judgment and award dated 30th July 2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Mehsana in MAC Petition No.1602 of 1995 whereby the claim petition has been allowed partly by the Tribunal.
2 The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are to the effect that on the date of the incident i.e. on 8th November 1995 the claimant was going on Scooter bearing No.GJ.1.8 5194 as a pillion rider for going to Mehsana from Sander. When said Scooter reached near Aloda, the said Scooter was collided by the offending truck bearing No.GJ.2.T 9749 that was coming from the opposite direction. It is the case of the claimant that the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and in a manner so as to endanger the human lives. Because of the said collision the claimant received serious injuries and was shifted to Private Hospital of Dr Kamlesh Gurjar at Mehsana where his right hand was amputated up to elbow. Therefore, he filed the aforesaid claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.5 lakhs on various heads.
3 The Tribunal has disbelieved the case of the claimants qua his income and considered the same as Rs.1500 per month. Looking to the whole body disability of 95% sustained by the claimant, the Tribunal considered the future economic loss at Rs.17,100 per annum and by adopting the multiplier of 18 awarded Rs.3,07,800/-. Over and above the same, the Tribunal has also awarded Rs.10,000 towards medicines and treatment charges, Rs.5,000 towards attendant and transportation charges, Rs.25,000 under the head of pain, shock and suffering. Thus, in all Rs.3,47,800 was awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation.
4 I have heard Ms Renu Singh, learned counsel for Mr Yogesh Ravani, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr Shelat for the respondent and perused the record.
5 Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant at Rs.1500 and assessed the annual loss at Rs.17,100/-. The Tribunal has adopted multiplier of 18 instead of 17. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has considered the evidence properly and awarded the aforesaid amount. Therefore, no case is made out for interfering with the same. The appeal has no merits. The same is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd Top