1. This appeal has been preferred against the common judgment and award dated 12.09.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhavnagar in M.A.C.Ps. No.790/1998 to 795/1998. In this appeal, we are concerned only with the final award passed in M.A.C.P. No.790/1998 insofar as the appellant, original claimant, has been awarded total compensation of Rs.1,92,400/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and proportionate costs as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-.
2. The facts in brief are that on 21.09.1998 at about 1230 hrs. while the appellant and four others were travelling in an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. GJ-3U-5893, a Tempo bearing registration No. GJ-1-X--4339, driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent-Insurance Company, dashed the auto-rickshaw. As a result of the said accident, one person died and others, including the appellant, sustained severe bodily injuries. He, therefore, filed the claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, which came to be partly allowed, by way of the impugned award. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
3. Heard Mr. DC Sejpal learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. NC Sood learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company. Though served, none appears on behalf of the other respondents. The main ground on which Mr. Sejpal learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for enhancement of compensation is that the monthly income ought to have been assessed at Rs.5,000/-. It has also been submitted that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on the lower side.
4. Mr.
Sood learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company supported the award of the Tribunal. He, however, fairly conceded that the multiplier of 14 adopted by the Tribunal is on the lower side.
5. There is no dispute between the parties so far as the issue of negligence assessed by the Tribunal is concerned. However, while computing income under the head of future loss, I find that the monthly income of the appellant has been assessed at Rs.3,000/-. It is pertinent to note that no documentary evidence was produced on record by the appellant to prove his income. The family of the appellant consists of five brother, including the appellant and therefore, the income from agriculture would get divided amongst them. However, considering the total area of land, I am of the view that the monthly income of Rs.3,000/- assessed by the Tribunal is just and appropriate. But, so far as the multiplier is concerned, the same is not in consonance with the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121 according to which the mutliplier would be 16. Thus, by assessing the permanent disability at 22.50%, the monthly loss would come to Rs.675/- and annual loss at Rs.8,100/-. By adopting the multiplier of 16, the total income under the head of future loss would come to Rs.1,29,600/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,13,400/- under the said head and hence, the appellant shall be entitled for additional amount of Rs.16,200/- under the said head.
6. So far as incomes awarded under the other heads are concerned, the same are not disturbed.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellant, original claimant, shall be entitled for additional compensation of Rs.16,200/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization. The rest of the impugned award remains unaltered. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/* Top