1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award of the M.A.C.T. (Main), Bharuch, dated 29.12.1990, rendered in M.A.C.P. No.559 of 1986, whereby the tribunal awarded Rs.1,25,800/- along with 12 per cent interest per annum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on account of a vehicular accident which took place on 15.12.1985 between a scooter and a bus, respondent No.1, who was travelling as a pillion rider on the scooter received severe bodily injuries. He, therefore, preferred the aforesaid claim petition, wherein the tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award. Hence, the present appeal.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has raised various contentions. He submitted that the tribunal erred in passing the impugned judgment and award. The tribunal failed to appreciate the material on record in its true perspective. The Tribunal wrongly held respondent No.2 was negligent to the extent of 80 per cent. The amount awarded by the tribunal is highly exaggerated, and therefore, he has prayed to allow the present appeal.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 has opposed the appeal by filing cross-objections and has prayed to dismiss the same, as being without merit.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. A perusal of FIR(Exhibit-33), Panchnama(Exhibit-34) reveal that the scooter on which respondent No.1 was travelling, was proceeding on the National Highway, whereas respondent No.2 was approaching the national highway, at the time of accident, and thus it appears that had the driver of the bus as well as that of the scooter taken reasonable care and caution, the accident could have been averted. Hence, the tribunal rightly holed that the driver of the scooter was negligent to the extent of 20 per cent, whereas driver of the bus was negligent to the extent of 80 per cent. Hence, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant, with regard to negligence requires to be rejected.
7. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the case of respondent No.1 before the tribunal was that, at the time of accident, he was aged about 28 years and was earning Rs.1220/- per month from service and on the date of deposition his salary was Rs.1500/- per month. On the basis of the same, the tribunal has awarded the compensation and the same, except, the amount awarded under the head of pain, shock and suffering and the multiplier applied by the tribunal, is just and proper.
8. The tribunal, while calculating the amount under the head of pain, shock and sufferings observed that respondent No.1 cannot be awarded less than Rs.25,000/- under the said head, in spite of that has awarded Rs.30,000/- under the said head. Hence, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant with regard to amount awarded towards pain, shock and sufferings is requires to be accepted and the appellant shall be entitled to a refund of Rs.5,000/-.
9. As regards the aspect of multiplier is concerned, respondent No.1, at the time of accident, was aged about 28 years and the tribunal has applied the multiplier of only 16 while calculating income of respondent No.1 from service, and hence, the contention of the learned Counsel for respondent No.1 that the tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of, at least, 17, requires to be accepted. The tribunal has awarded Rs.48,000/- by taking annual loss of income from service at Rs.3000/-, by applying the multiplier of 16. Thus, applying the multiplier of 17, the loss of future income from service would come to Rs.51,000/-. Since, the tribunal has already awarded Rs.48,000/- towards the loss of income from service, respondent No.1 shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.(51000 – 48000)=Rs. 3000/-.
10. As regards the income of respondent No.1 from the agriculture is concerned, the tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/-, taking monthly income from agriculture at Rs.2500/-. Thus, now applying the multiplier of 17, the future loss of income from agriculture would come to Rs.(2500 X 17)=42,500/-. Thus, towards the loss in income from agriculture source, respondent No.1 shall be entitled to receive an additional amount of Rs. (42,500 – 40,000)=2,500/-. In other words, from the both sources i.e. service and agriculture, respondent No.1 shall be enititled to an additional amount of Rs.(3000 + 2500)=5,500/-.
11. The tribunal has awarded the original amount of compensation along with 12 per cent interest. However, looking to the prevalent rate of interest, it would be just and proper if the additional amount is awarded along with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum.
12. In the result, both the appeal as well as the cross-objections are ALLOWED. The appellant shall be REFUNDED an amount of Rs.5,000/- from the amount awarded under the head of pain, shock and sufferings along with interest, costs, if any. Respondent No.1, the original claimant, shall be entitled to an ADDITIONAL amount of Rs.5,500/- under the head of loss of future income along with 7.5 per cent interest per annum from the date of application, till its realization. The judgment and award impugned in the present appeal stands MODIFIED to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI,J.) Umesh/