This first appeal arises out of a judgment and award rendered by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Kutch at Bhuj in MACP No.601 of 1997 on 31/08/2004. The said petition arose out of an accident that occurred on 19/04/2003 at about 4:45 p.m., at village Dhandhi. The petitioner was insured in that accident. He was working as an attendant in a water tanker which employed in supplying water to villages. At the time of accident, the tanker was suddenly taken in reverse, while the claimant was supplying water and the left leg of the claimant got trapped between the tanker and the wall. It was crushed and was required to be amputated. The claimant, therefore, initially claimed compensation of Rs.4,15,000/-, which he reduced to Rs.3,00,000/- at a later stage. 2. At the time of accident, the income of the claimant was Rs.2,000/- and odd, but when his deposition was recorded after a gap of about nine to ten years, his income was increased to Rs.10,000/- and odd. The age of the claimant at the time of accident was 35 years. The Tribunal, therefore, observed that there was no negligence on part of the claimant and that he was entitled to compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering, medical expenditure, but not future loss of income till he continued in service because he continued in service even after the accident and there was enhancement in his salary with two promotions. The Tribunal, however, awarded some compensation for future loss of income for a fixed period of five years after retirement adopting a multiplier of five taking the income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/-. The claimant had suffered a disability of 45% in respect of body as a whole and 90 % in respect of limb as certified by the Doctor.
3. In the opinion of this Court, the Tribunal's approach in assessing compensation is just and proper. When the Tribunal found that there was no loss of job or reduction in income, but on the contrary the claimant was given promotions and enhanced salary, the Tribunal did not award any amount under the head of future loss of income till the claimant attained age of retirement. But, for a fixed period after the age of retirement, the Tribunal awarded the compensation under the head of future loss of income by adopting a multiplier of five years and taking the income at Rs.10,000/-. In fact, if the Tribunal had observed that within a period of ten years, the claimant's income increased from Rs.2,000/- and odd to Rs.10,000/- and odd, in future also, his income would have increased till his attaining the age of superannuation and that should have been taken as the basis of adopting future loss of income for the claimant, but that is not done by the Tribunal and the claimant has not preferred any appeal.
4. In the opinion of this Court, the Tribunal's award therefore, does not call for any interference on these counts. The claimant who lost his leg below knee with a disability of 90% at the age of 35 years, cannot be said to have been adequately compensated; when the Tribunal awarded only Rs.15,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. But, here again the claimant has chosen not to prefer an appeal.
5. In the opinion of this Court, the award of the Tribunal is just, legal, proper and a bit of conservative side. It does not call for any interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Appeal, therefore, must fail and stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.
6. The amount, if any, deposited with the Registry and not transmitted uptil now, will be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement as per the award of the Tribunal.
(A L DAVE, J.) sompura