1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 09.12.1988 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Main] Ahmedabad (Rural) in M.A.C.P. No. 43 of 1984, whereby the claim petition was partly allowed and the original claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.52,000/- along with proportionate costs and interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the application till its realization.
2. In connection with the vehicular accident that took place on 22.10.1982 involving the S.T. bus bearing registration No. GRT-8524 and a truck bearing registration no. MBE-1610, two persons expired and some of the persons were injured. In the said accident, the driver of the truck-appellant herein filed M.A.C.P. No.43/84 before the Tribunal, which came to be partly allowed, by way of impugned award dated 09.12.1988. The present appeal has been filed for enhancement of the amount of compensation.
3. Though served, none appears for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the documents. It appears that the Tribunal has committed arithmetical error while calculating the amount under the head of actual loss of income in para 257 of the award. The Tribunal has wrongly assessed the actual loss of income for three years at Rs.24,000/-. If the income per year is assessed at Rs.12,000/- then the annual loss for three years would come to Rs.36,000/- [12,000 x 3]. Therefore, evidently, the Tribunal has committed arithmetical error while computing actual loss of income. Hence, the appellant is entitled to receive additional amount of Rs.12,000/- under the head of actual loss of income.
4. So far as income under the head of future loss is concerned, I find that the Tribunal has not considered the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav and Another, 1996 (3) SCC 179, while computing the income, if the principle laid down in the said decision is followed, the prospective income would come to Rs.1500/- per month. It appears from the medical evidence on record that the appellant has sustained permanent disability to the extent of 37.5% for the body as a whole. Hence, the monthly loss of income would come to Rs.562/- and the annual loss of income could come to Rs.6744/-. The claimant was aged 32 years at the time of accident and therefore, the appropriate multiplier would be 16 instead of 10 as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC reported in (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121.
Hence, the total loss of income would come to Rs.1,07,904/- [6744 x 16]. However, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.60,000/- only under the said head. Hence, the original claimants shall be entitled for additional compensation of Rs.47,904/- under the said head and additional amount of Rs.12,000/- under the head of actual loss of income. Thus, the claimants shall be entitled for additional amount of compensation of Rs.59,904/-. However, after deducting the contributory negligence of 50%, the claimants shall be entitled to additional amount of Rs.29,952/-, which is rounded off to Rs.30,000/-.
5. So far as award under other heads are concerned, I find that the compensation awarded under the other heads are just and appropriate and in consonance with the evidence on record and the law on the subject. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal.
6. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellant, original claimant, shall be entitled for additional amount of Rs.30,000/- as compensation over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the application till its realization. The rest of the impugned award remains unaltered. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/