1. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 31.08.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jamnagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 227 of 1994 Ex. 71 so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 1,67,200/- as compensation with interest and costs.
2. It is the case of the appellant that while the appellant was going on his motorcycle, a matador bearing registration No. GJ-10-T 5510 which was being driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle as a result of which he was thrown off the motorcycle. The appellant sustained injuries and therefore filed claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,90,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
3. Mr. Kanara, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in considering the contributory negligence of the appellant to the extent of 20%. He further submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that the appellant's monthly income was only Rs. 1800/- when it ought to have been assessed at atleast Rs. 2000/- per month. He also submitted that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on lower side and the amount awarded under the head of pain shock and suffering is also less. He has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 wherein it is held as under:
4. “The multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”
4. Ms. Viraj Fojdar, learned advocate appearing for Ms. Megha Jani for the respondent insurance company supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered the contributory negligence of the appellant taking into account the documentary evidence. She submitted that the assessment of income is also just and proper looking to the business of selling milk and milk products. She however could not controvert the issue of multiplier.
5. The Tribunal in the present case has considered the documentary evidence placed on record and has come to the conclusion that both the vehicle drivers were responsible for the accident in question. The Tribunal accordingly attributed 20% contributory negligence on the part of the appellant which is just and proper considering the fact that the evidence shows that the appellant was driving his vehicle on the middle of the road and no care was taken when there was an oncoming heavy vehicle from the opposite side.
6. In the present case the income assessed by the Tribunal is Rs. 1800/- per month which is just and proper. Accordingly, the income per annum shall be Rs. 21600/-. The disability assessed is 50% and therefore loss of income per annum shall come to Rs. 10,800/-.
7. As per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), I am of the view that, looking to the age of the claimant, the multiplier of 15 awarded in the present case is on lower side. The just and proper multiplier shall be 16. Therefore the future loss of income would come to Rs. 1,72,800 (Rs.10800 x 16). The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 162000/- and therefore an additional amount of Rs. 10800/- is required to be granted under the head of future loss of income.
8. As regards the rest of the awards under various heads, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 18000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering. However looking to the days of hospitalization, the shortened knee and the medical/disability certificate, the said amount seems to be on lower side. This court is of the view that ends of justice shall be met if an additional amount of Rs. 17000/- is awarded thereby making the total amount under the head of pain shock and suffering at Rs. 35000/-. The remaining amounts are just and proper and no interference is required.
9. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 27800/- (Rs. 10800 additional for future loss of income and Rs. 17000 additional for pain, shock and suffering). However, considering contributory negligence of 20%, the appellant shall be actually entitled to only Rs. 22,240/- as additional compensation which is rounded off to Rs. 22,250/-.
10. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 22,250/- alongwith interest at 7.5% from the date of application till realisation. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//