1 By way of filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellant – original claimant has challenged the judgment and award dated 5th March 1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.1), Kachchh at Bhuj in MAC Petition No.202 of 1992 whereby the claim petition has been allowed partly.
2 The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are to the effect that on the date of the incident i.e. on 29th November 1991 the claimant was travelling in auto-rickshaw bearing No.GQU 945 as a passenger and was going to Anjar from Varli. It is the case of the claimant that due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the rickshaw driver, the said rickshaw turned turtle when it reached the place of Lohan Boarding on Anjar Nagalpur road due to which he received serious injuries.
3 The appellant original claimant has therefore filed aforesaid MAC Petition No.202 of 1992 claiming compensation of Rs.2 lakhs from the respondents herein.
4. On the point of income, the Tribunal has considered income of the claimant at Rs.1800 per month and as he sustained 20% permanent partial disability, he was entitled to Rs.360 per month and Rs.4320 per annum towards future economic loss. Considering the age of the claimant, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 15 and thereby awarded Rs.64,800 towards future economic loss. Over and above, the Tribunal has also awarded Rs.7,200 under the head of actual loss of income, Rs.12,000 towards medicines and treatment charges and Rs.15,000 towards Pain, Shock and Suffering, Rs.7,000 towards transportation and conveyance charges and Rs.3,000 for special diet and Rs.5,000 towards attendant charges. Thus, in all Rs.114,000 was awarded to the claimant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income on lower side and also disability percentage. He further contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding actual loss of income for three months more particularly when the appellant could not go for work for two years.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material on record. From the record it is clear that the tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the appellant and the percentage of the disability. The multiplier of 15 adopted by the Tribunal is on lower side, it should be 16 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2009(6) SCC, 121. If multiplier of 16 is adopted, the future loss of income comes to Rs.69,120/-, whereas the Tribunal has awarded Rs.64,800/-. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for additional amount of Rs.4,320/- under the head of future loss of income. No interference is called for under any other head.
7. In that view of the matter, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,320/- along with interest at the rate of 7 ½ per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application till realization.
8. The judgement and award of the tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The decree be drawn accordingly. present appeal is partly allowed.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd