1 By way of filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellant - original claimant has challenged the judgment and order dated 12th August 2004 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Gondal in MAC Petition No.21 of 1999 whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,45,280 to the claimant.
2 The short facts of the present appeal are that on the date of the incident i.e. on 15th December 1998 the claimant was returning to his village Ghoghavadar on his bullet motorcycle. It is case of the appellant that he was riding the bike slowly and on the correct side of the road and at that time a chhakado rickshaw bearing No.GJ.3.X 306 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the bullet motorcycle as a result of which appellant sustained serious injuries on his left leg and other injuries. He was admitted in Madhuram Hospital at Dhebar Road, Rajkot where he was operated thrice on his left leg. He therefore filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.7 lakhs.
3 The Tribunal has considered the income of the claimant at Rs.2100 per month notionally. The whole body disability was agreed at 45% and therefore the future loss was arrived at Rs.945 per month and Rs.11340 per annum. As the appellant was 21 years old, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 15 and arrived at Rs.170,100 towards future economic loss. The Tribunal has also awarded the following sums under different heads:
on medical treatment Rs.1,03,000 Towards special food attendant charges,etc. Rs. 8,000 Future loss of income Rs.1,70,100 Actual loss of income Rs. 9,000 Conveyance Charges Rs. 4,000
---------------------------
Total Rs.3,19,100 As
the claimant has also contributed to the accident to the extent of 20%, the Tribunal deducted 20% from the aforesaid amount and awarded Rs.2,45,280 towards compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
4 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the income of the claimant at Rs.3,000 per month. However, in view of the fact that there is no documentary evidence to prove the same, the Tribunal has considered the notional income of the appellant at Rs.2100/- per month.
5 Considering the reasoning of the learned Tribunal, I am of the view that no interference is called for. Taking into consideration the disability and other factors and age factor the amount awarded is just and proper and no interference is called for. The appeal is devoid of any merits. No interference is called for. Hence, dismissed.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd Top