1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 16.06.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad in M.A.C.P. No.140/1993 whereby, the claim petition was partly allowed and respondent no.1, original claimant, was awarded total compensation of Rs.1,69,600/- along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of application till its realization. It was further ordered that if payment was not made within two months from the date of decree, then interest shall be calculated at the rate of 12% per annum.
2. The facts in brief are that on 21.03.1993 at about 1015 hrs. while respondent no.1 was going to a nearby market on his motor-cycle bearing registration No. GCP 5697, a Car bearing registration No. GCP 7600, driven by respondent no.2 and owned by respondent no.3, dashed the motor-cycle from the behind. In the said accident, respondent no.1 sustained severe bodily injuries. Therefore, he filed the claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.2.00 Lacs with interest.
3. The said claim petition came to be partly allowed by way of the impugned award whereby, total compensation of Rs.1,69,600/- was awarded, viz.
Rs.84,600/- towards future loss of income, Rs.18,000/- towards actual loss of income, Rs.15,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, Rs.35,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.8,000/- towards special diet and Rs.3,000/- each towards transportation, expenses incurred by attendants and gratuitous service of attendants. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. None appears on behalf of respondent no.1 though served.
5. The main contention raised on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company is that the Tribunal has erred in applying two different standards while assessing the monthly income of respondent no.1. It has been submitted that the Tribunal has assessed monthly income at Rs.3,000/- while computing actual loss of income and has assessed the monthly income at Rs.6,000/- while computing future loss of income. It has been further submitted that the claimant had not produced any documentary evidence in support of his income and that his taxable income for the Assessment Year 1989 – 1990 was Rs.190/- only and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in assessing the income on the higher side. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents no.2 & 3 has supported the impugned award passed by the Tribunal.
6. In the impugned award, the Tribunal has recorded that respondent no.1-original claimant has not produced a single documentary evidence regarding his income. Considering the Income-tax document produced on record, the annual income of respondent no.1 could not be assessed at Rs.24,000/- at the most at the time when the accident occurred. Therefore, the monthly income would come to Rs.2,000/-. It appears from the award that the Tribunal has adopted two different figures while calculating the monthly income of respondent no.1, which is not permissible under the law. The Tribunal cannot assess the monthly income of respondent no.1 at Rs.3,000/- while calculating the actual loss of income and assess it at Rs.6,000/- while calculating future loss of income. Two different standards cannot be adopted while calculating compensation. If we adopt the monthly income of respondent no.1 at Rs.2,000/-, the monthly loss of income would come to Rs.200/- by assessing the permanent disability at 10% for the body as a whole. Accordingly, the annual loss of future income would come to Rs.2,400/-. The Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 12, which is inappropriate, considering the age of respondent no.1. In my view, the multiplier should have been 15. By adopting the said multiplier, the total amount under the head of future loss of income would come to Rs.36,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,02,600/- [84,600 + 18,000] under the head of future loss of income and actual loss of income. Since the claimant is entitled for Rs.36,000/- only under the head of future loss of income, the excess amount is required to be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company.
7. So far as income awarded under the other heads are concerned, the same are just, legal and appropriate. Hence, I find no reasons to disturb the same.
8. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that respondent no.1, original claimant, shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,03,000/- [Rs.36,000 towards future loss of income + Rs.15,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering + Rs.35,000/- towards medical expenses + Rs.8,000/- towards special diet + Rs.3,000/- each towards transportation, expenses incurred by attendants and gratuitous service of attendants] as against the total compensation of Rs.1,69,600/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum instead of 15% per annum, calculated from the date of application till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The excess amount of Rs.66,600/- shall be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company along with interest at the rate of 05% per annum and at the rate of 08% per annum on Rs.1,69,600/-. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*