1. ADMITTED.
2. Mr. Sunil Parikh learned advocate appears for the respondent nos.3 & 5 and waives service of notice of admission.
3. Mr. Karna H. Dhomse learned advocate for Mr. HM Modi learned advocate for the appellant states that the instant appeal is filed for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and since the learned counsel representing the common Insurance Company of both the vehicles appeared, the presence of driver and owner of the vehicle may not be required.
4. Both learned advocates Mr. Dhomse for the appellant so also Mr. Parikh for the respondent nos.3 & 5 – Insurance Company requested that the appeal may be heard and may be disposed of. In above view of the matter, the instant appeal is heard today and is being disposed of.
5. The instant appeal is filed challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 05/07/2010 passed by the learned MACT (Aux.), Vadodara in MACP No.88/2007 and other allied matters. The Tribunal by virtue of the common judgment and award, awarded Rs.1,66,000/- by way of compensation to the appellant- claimant with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the original Claim Petition up to realisation with proportionate costs thereon.
6. As per the case of the appellant-claimant, the vehicular accident occurred on 23/12/2006 and at that time, he alongwith the others was travelling in Ambulance bearing registration No.GJ-18G-6486 and there was collision between two vehicles viz. The Ambulance and Dumper Truck bearing registration No.GJ-
6Y-5959 and in the accident, he sustained serious injuries, which resulted into bodily disability. According to the appellant-claimant, at the time of accident, he was aged about 24 years and he was doing his job as a helper.
7. Mr. Dhomse learned advocate for the appellant, at the outset, submitted that in the instant matter, the Tribunal erred in considering the age of the appellant as 30 years and not as 24 years. He submitted that alternatively, even considering the age of the appellant being 30 years at the time of accident, as per the case of 'Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another' reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121, the Tribunal should have applied multiplier of 17 years, but in the instant case, the Tribunal applied multiplier of 15 years. He also submitted that in the instant case, the appellant- claimant sustained serious bodily injuries, but the Tribunal awarded only Rs.17,500/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal may be accordingly allowed.
8. Mr. Parikh, learned advocate for the respondent nos.3 & 5- New India Assurance Company Limited Opposed this appeal and submitted that no interference by this Hon'ble Court is warranted in the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal.
9. Since during the course of arguments on behalf of the appellant, the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal has been challenged only on two counts, viz. multiplier as well as the amount awarded under the head of pain, shock and suffering, it will not be necessary for this Court to enter into the other aspects of the matters or in any other details.
10. Considering the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal so also considering the submissions advanced, it is true that the say of the appellant-claimant before the Tribunal was that at the time of accident, he was aged about 24 years. To substantiate such case, the appellant did not produce any documentary evidence like School Leaving Certificate or any Birth Registration Certificate. As against that, the Tribunal observed that from the available documents on record viz. injury certificate etc. the age of the appellant was stated to be 30 years. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal did not err in coming to the conclusion that at the time of accident, the appellant was aged about 30 years. However, it transpires that the Tribunal applied multiplier of 15 years, but as per Sarla Verma's Case (Supra), this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal should have applied multiplier of 17 years. Considering the annual income of the applicant at the time accident at Rs.30,000/- and the permanent disablement of body as a whole affecting the earning capacity was considered to be 30%, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the annual loss comes to Rs.9,000/-. Accordingly, the appellant-claimant is otherwise entitled to recover Rs.1,53,000/- [Rs.9,000/- X 17] by way of compensation under the head of loss towards future income.
11. The Tribunal awarded Rs.17,500/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of injuries sustained, no interference is warranted by this Court in the said findings.
12. Consequently, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to recover Rs.18,000/- more by way of compensation since he is entitled to two more multipliers. To the aforesaid extent, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed.
13. The appeal is partly allowed and the impugned common judgment and award dated 05/07/2010 passed by the learned MACT (Aux.), Vadodara in MACP No.88/2007, is hereby modified and it is hereby directed that the appellant-claimant is entitled to recover by way of compensation Rs.18,000/- [Rupees Eighteen Thousand Only] in addition to what was awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant-claimant and he is entitled to recover the additional amount with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the original claim petition till the realisation with proportionate costs thereon. The respondent no.1, 2 and 3 shall jointly and severally pay the aforesaid amount.
14. Mr. Parikh learned advocate for the respondent no.3-Insurance Company upon instructions, states that the enhancement amount of compensation as awarded by this Court shall be deposited preferably within three months with the concerned Claim Tribunal. Upon the amount being deposited, the Tribunal shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order for disbursement of the additional amount of compensation awarded by this Court. No costs.
aruna (J.C.UPADHYAYA, J)