1. By way of this appeal, the present appellant-
original claimant has challenged the judgement and award dated 17.04.2002, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jamnagar, in M.A.C.P. No.260 of 1997, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.55,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of application till realization.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 17.01.1997 Mustakkhan Hanifkhan Pathan was the Cleaner in the Truck bearing Registration No. GTJ-5631. While driving the Truck in reverse by the opponent No.1, the appellant was giving directions from the Truck and, because of negligent
Therefore, the appellant filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.260 of 1997 before the Tribunal for compensation.
3. The learned tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after recording the evidence decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated hereinabove against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the tribunal has not properly considered the evidence produced on record. He further submitted that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2009(6) SCC, 121, the tribunal has committed an error in not awarding the future loss of income of the appellant. Therefore he submitted that the amount awarded by the tribunal is required to be enhanced by this Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record as well as the judgement and award of the tribunal. So far as the issue of negligence is concerned, the Tribunal has relied upon FIR, Panchnama and oral evidences and rightly held opponent Nos.1 50% liable for the accident.
6. So far as the issue of quantum is concerned, in absence of any evidence to prove the income of the claimant, the Tribunal has rightly assessed monthly income of the claimant at Rs.1,000/-. But the Tribunal ought to have considered the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and ought to have calculated prospective income of the claimant. Hence, prospective income of the claimant comes to Rs.1,500 (Rs.1,000 X 3/2). The Tribunal was however justified in assessing 20% disability body as a whole relying upon medical certificate issued by Dr.Maheshvari at Exh.40. Therefore, the Tribunal was completely justified in assessing monthly loss of income at Rs.300/- and accordingly, annual loss of income at Rs.3,600/-. The Tribunal ought to have considered the principle laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), and should have adopted multiplier of 18 as the appellant was aged about 18 years at the time of accidence. Hence, the total loss of future income comes to Rs.64,800/- (1500 X 20%= 300 X 12= 3600 X 18= Rs.64,800/-).
7. The Tribunal has awarded three months actual loss of income i.e. Rs.3,000/-, Rs.5,000/- for medical expenses, Rs.1,500/- for transportation charges and for special diet and Rs.2,000/- for attendant charges and Rs.7,500/- for the pain, shock and suffering. The Tribunal was completely justified in awarding the compensation under the aforesaid heads. Therefore, in all appellant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.83,800/-.
8. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.55,000/- as compensation, therefore, an additional amount of Rs.28,800/- is required to be paid to the appellant but as the Tribunal has held original opponent No.1 50% liable for the accident. The appellant is entitled for Rs.14,400/- alongwith 7.5% interest.
9. The appeal is partly allowed. The judgement and award of the tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The decree be drawn accordingly. Present appeal is partly allowed.
mehul (K.S.JHAVERI,J.)