1.0 This appeal, at the instance of the original claimant, is directed against the judgement and award dated 12.01.1995 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1324 of 1989 wherein the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.75000/ along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation.
2.0 On24.04.1989 the claimant was traveling in a tempo bearing No.
GRR 3335 on VajepurMewada Road. At that time the driver of the tempo lost control over the truck and it turned turtle. The claimant sustained injuries and therefore he filed the aforesaid claim petition wherein the aforesaid award was passed. In the present appeal the claimant prayed for enhancement of compensation.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.40000/ towards pain, shock and suffering, Rs.6300/ towards economic loss; that the disability should have been calculated at 50%; that the amount towards expenses should have been Rs.4500/ and that the multiplier is on lower side.
4.0 The Tribunal has discussed and considered the income and disability aspect in greater details. From the evidence it was found that theclaimant was getting Rs.700/ at the time of accident and therefore his monthly income was taken at Rs.700/ and prospective income was assessed at Rs.1000/. The claimant remained bedridden for seven months and therefore taking the income of Rs.700/ the loss was calculated and rounded up to Rs.5000//.
5.0 Dr. Amul Pandya tendered his oral evidence at Exh.44 and according to him the disability is to the extent of 50%. The disability certificate is produced at Exh.48. However, in the crossexamination he admitted that the disability which he has assessed at 50% may be reduced to certain percentage for the purpose of assessment of the disability of the body as a whole. There was no positive evidence that he is not doing any other job. Therefore the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 25% on the body as a whole. Learned Advocate for the appellant is not in a position to point out anything from the record to take a different view of the matter. Further, when the monthly income is taken at Rs.700/ the prospective income is taken at Rs.1000/ and it cannot be said that the said amount is on lower side. The Tribunal has taken multiplier of 15 which is also just and reasonable.
6.0 I am also of the view that Rs.20000/ towards mental pain, shock and suffering and Rs.5000/ towards miscellaneous expenses are just and proper.
7.0 I am in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal. This appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*