This appeal is at the instance of the owner of the vehicle, viz. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and is directed against an award dated March 20, 1993 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Aux], Vadodara in M.A.C. Petition No. 545 of 1985 thereby disposing of a proceedings for compensation for injuries suffered by the claimant in a motor accident, by awarding a sum of Rs.1,00,600- 00 with costs and interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of application till payment by the opponents. Being dissatisfied, the owner of the vehicle, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, has come up with the present appeal.
The following facts are not in dispute:
While the claimant was riding a bicycle, the offending bus owned by the appellant came from behind and dashed the claimant, as a result, he was seriously injured. On account of the said injuries, the claimant was in hospital as indoor patient for 168 days and had to further undergo physiotherapy for about 2 months. He was absent from his office for a total period of 10 months. The claimant was aged 45 years at the time of the accident.
It appears from the medical evidence accepted by the Tribunal that the claimant suffered fracture of right femur, right humerus bone and pelvic bone; the resultant effect of the injuries caused in the accident was that the claimant had to limp while walking and that too with pain. Hip joint movement was upto 90 degree. Siding movement was 50 degrees. The leg on the outer side was fixed in 10 degree rotation and further rotation was 40 degrees. His leg was shortened by 1 Cm. He had deformity in the lower limb. He had difficulty in movement of the right wrist.
The Orthopedic Surgeon who had treated the claimant assessed his permanent disability to the extent of 25% of the lower limb and while deposing in the proceedings, the said Doctor was of the opinion that on the point of view of the whole body, the same should be also not less than 25%.
The proceedings was contested by the appellant thereby it was sought to be contended that as a bus was coming from the opposite direction in a rash manner, for the purpose of avoiding the accident, the driver of the bus had to dash with the cycle which was also not proceeding on the extreme left side of the road.
The Tribunal disbelieved the version of the owner of the vehicle in view of the fact that the driver of the offending bus was not examined. The driver of the bus coming from the opposite direction was also not examined by the appellant and since the claimant was knocked down from behind, the Tribunal held that the offending bus driver was solely responsible for the accident. In view of the evidence on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said findings arrived at by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,600-00 under the following separate heads:
Rs.50,400-00 Future loss of income Rs.15,000-00 Actual loss of income Rs. 3,000-00 attendant charges Rs. 2,200-00 Special diet Rs.30,000-00 pain, shock and suffering While arriving at the conclusion that Rs.50,400/- should be the amount of future loss, the Tribunal assessed only a sum of Rs.350/- a month as future economic loss and applied thereto a multiplier of 15.
It may not be out of place to mention here that the victim was a Railway employee and he specifically claimed in his evidence that due to the accident, his promotion was delayed and although he was given increment in salary, he was getting lesser amount due to such accident. He specifically asserted that at the time of deposition, he should have been in the pay-scale of Rs.3300-3500 but he was merely getting Rs.2500/- at that time. The Tribunal below, however, did not accept the contention of the claimant that the victim did not get promotion for the accident but accepted the fact that there was delayed promotion.
Ms. Desai, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has strenuously contended before me that as the victim was a Railway employee and as it appears that except taking leave for about 10 months from his service, he has not financially suffered in any way as he has neither lost the job nor has anything prevented him from even doing the present job. She submitted that the Tribunal was thus not justified in awarding Rs.50,400/- towards future loss of income.
After going through the evidence on record, I find that the aforesaid amount has been assessed on the basis of loss of only Rs.350/- a month as future economic loss and by applying a multiplier of 15. Admittedly, the victim was aged 45 years at the time of the accident. Having regard to the fact that at the time of deposition the victim was getting Rs.2500/- a month and according to his assertion, but for the accident he would have been in the pay-scale of Rs.3300- 3500, I am of the opinion that the aforesaid assessment cannot be said to be unreasonable, justifying interference in this appeal when no material is available on record to show that the assertion of the claimant was not correct.
As regards the other amount of compensation assessed by the Tribunal, I find that Rs.3000/- awarded towards attendant charges and Rs.3300/- towards special diet, in a case where the victim was in hospital for more than 168 days, cannot be said to be unreasonable. Similarly, in view of the deformity suffered by the claimant, the sum of Rs.30,000/- awarded towards pain, shock and suffering also is quite reasonable.
I, therefore, find that the Tribunal has judiciously assessed the amount of Rs.1,00,600/- as compensation and the same does not require any interference by this Court.
I, however, find substance in the contention of Ms. Desai that the award of interest at 15% p.a. from the date of application till actual payment is on the higher side. I, therefore, reduce the rate of interest to 12%, which was the usual rate of bank interest given by Nationalized Banks on Fixed Deposits for more than one year.
On consideration of the entire materials on record, I thus modify the award only to the extent that the rate of interest should be reduced to 12% instead of 15% awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to re-calculate the amount on the basis of 12% interest from the date of application till deposit by the appellant, refund to the appellant the excess amount of interest with proportionate interest accrued thereon in terms of this order and release the remaining amount to the claimant on proper verification, within a period of two months from today.
The appeal is allowed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be, however, no order as to costs.
Registry is directed to forthwith return the Record and Proceedings to the Tribunal.
[BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, ACTING C.J.] mathew