1. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 17.05.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Baroda in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1793 of 1991 so far as the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,27,000/- by way of compensation to the original claimants along with 12% interest for the period from date of application to 31.12.1999 and thereafter at 9% till the date of realization.
2. It is the case of the claimant that while the the minor applicant was returning home from school in an autorickshaw bearing registration no. GRQ 896, a truck bearing registration no. GRQ 5377 driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner and loaded with iron bars suddenly applied brakes as a result of which the minor applicant sustained serious injuries due to the iron bars. The minor applicant therefore filed claim petition through his father for compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
3. Mr. Dakshesh Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in quantifying the award at Rs. 2,27,000/- . He submitted that the Tribunal erred in considering the monthly income of the minor aged about 8 years at Rs. 3000/- which is very irrational. He submitted that infact even if the schedule under the Act is perused the notional income ought to have been considered at Rs. 15000/- per annum which is in the year 1994 whereas the accident happened in the year 1991.
4. Mr. Hakim, learned advocate appearing for the respondent supported the impugned award and submitted that the award having been passed after considering the evidence in detail does not call for any interference by this Court. He submitted that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income. He submitted that in fact the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on lower side and the same may be enhanced.
5. The Tribunal has gone into the evidence in detail and has come to the conclusion that the accident in question happened because of the negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles. However, the income assessed by the Tribunal seems to be on a higher side. No concrete evidence is produced on record to substantiate the claim of the claimants as far as income is concerned. The Tribunal has observed that there is no documentary evidence on record to show the actual income as the application is a minor and inspite of the said fact the Tribunal ought not to have assessed the income at Rs. 3000/- on mere pleadings and documents of the parents. In such an event, assessment of income at Rs. 15000/- per annum would have been just and proper. Even if the prospective income is considered, the same shall come to Rs. 22,500/-
6. Deducting 30% towards disability, the loss per annum shall come to Rs. 6750/- . The multiplier of 15 adopted in the present case is on lower side. The appropriate multiplier in the present case ought to have been 18 and accordingly the future loss of income shall come to Rs. 1,21,500/-. Against this, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,62,000/- which is excessive.
7. As regards the rest of the award under various heads is just and proper and no interference is required. Therefore the claimants are in all entitled to Rs. 1,86,500/- as compensation (Rs. 1,21,500 for future loss of income + Rs. 65000 under various heads).
8. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled to only Rs. 1,86,500/- by way of total compensation. The balance amount of Rs. 40,500/- along with proportionate interest shall be refunded to the appellant - insurance company. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//