[1] This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 27th October 2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Surendranagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.790/1997, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.1,27,200/- to the claimants along with proportionate cost and interest from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
[2] The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the accident occurred on 15.02.1997 just Opp. State Bungalow, on Station Road, Limbdi. On the day of accident, the claimant was proceeding on Luna Motor Cycle as a pillion rider, to meet his daughter and His friend Rajendra Rasiklal was driving his motor cycle on a normal speed and on correct side. When they reached near State Bungalow on Station Road, Limbdi at that time Fiat Car bearing Registration No.GJ-1-PP 5815 came from opposite direction and dashed with Luna Motor Cycle as a result of which he sustained fracture on his right leg. He was immediately shifted to the R. R. Hospital and after giving primary treatment, he was shifted to the Hospital of Dr.Uttam Vyas, a Consultant Ortho. Surgeon of Surendranagar and treated there as an indoor patient for a period of 13 days where operation on his right leg was performed. He spent huge amount towards medical treatment, special diet, transportation etc. Therefore, the claimant filed aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation.
[3] The Tribunal after hearing learned advocates for the parties and after perusing the record, decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated hereinabove, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant – Insurance Company.
[4] Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not appreciating and applying the correct principles governing assessment and awarding of compensation. He submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that there was no evidence on record to show that the respondent No.1 who was selling pan-beedi was earning RS.3,000/- per month. He therefore submitted that in absence of any evidence the Tribunal ought to have considered the notional income of Rs.1,500/- per month. He submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding Rs.20,000/- as pain, shock and suffering looking to the injuries and disability of 10% of the body as a whole. He submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding Rs.16,000/- as attendant charges, Rs.8,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.25,000/- towards medical treatment. He submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in considering the income of Rs.3,000/- per month of the claimant and in adopting multiplier of 12 when the age of claimant was 52 years and, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered the multiplier of 10 instead of 12 and income of Rs.1,500/- per month instead of Rs.3,000/- per month. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the actual loss of income of Rs.6,000/- per month instead of Rs.12,000/- per month. He, therefore, urged that the appeal may be allowed and the judgment and award of the Tribunal may be quashed and set aside.
[5] Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the relevant documents on record.
[6] Having considered the submissions and averments made in the appeal and evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the award passed by the tribunal is required to be modified. The learned Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.43,200/- towards the future loss of income. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have considered income as Rs.2,000/- per month. The Tribunal has erred in considering Rs.3,000/- per month as the income of the claimant and, yearly income shall be Rs.2400/-. Considering the age of the claimant, the 11 multiplier is just and proper. Therefore, Rs.26,400/- would be the future loss of income. The Tribunal has also erred in awarding Rs.16,000/- towards attendance charges.
Considering the hospitalization of the claimant in the hospital Rs.5,000/- is just and proper and, therefore, Rs.5,000/- is awarded to the claimant towards the attendance charges. The Tribunal has also erred in awarding Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses, so Rs.13,000/- is just and proper considering the treatment period of the claimant. Therefore, same is awarded to the claimant. The claimant is entitled to Rs.63,400/- as total compensation, and therefore, excess amount of Rs.63,800/- is required to be refunded with interest to the appellant. The appellant is entitled for the amount of Rs.63,800/- towards refund amount. If the amount is deposited before this Court, the same shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.
[7] For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed.
[ K. S. JHAVERI, J. ] vijay