1 By way of filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellants – original claimants have challenged the judgment and order dated 31st July 1996 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Rural) in MAC Petition No.164 of 1992 whereby the Tribunal has partially allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant.
2 The short facts of the present appeal are that on 24th February 1989 the respondent original claimant was driving auto rickshaw bearing No.GRX 311 for coming to Ahmedabad. It is the case of the claimant that when the said rickshaw reached village Tailav on Sanand Sarkhej Road, the offending truck bearing No.GRW 3269 came from the opposite direction and dashed with the rickshaw due to which the claimant sustained serious injuries and was taken to VS Hospital in Ahmedabad. The claimant filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.4 lakhs contending that he was earning Rs.2500 to 3,000 per month by plying the rickshaw.
3 The Tribunal observed that as no documentary evidence was produced in support of monthly income, the income of the claimant should be considered as Rs.1250 per month. As the injured was 29 years old and as he sustained whole body disability of 25% the monthly future loss of income could be determined at Rs.312.50 and Rs.3750 per annum. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 15 and thereby quantified the future economic loss at Rs.56,250/-. Thus, the Tribunal has also awarded the following amounts:
● Pain, Shock and Suffering Rs.10,000
● Expenses on medical treatment Rs.5,000
● Actual loss of income Rs.7,500
● Towards transportation charges Rs.4,000
● Attendant Charges Rs.3,000
● Special diet Rs.3,000
● Future Economic Loss Rs.56,250 Total Rs.87,750
4 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in considering the income of the appellant as Rs.1250 per month though he was earning Rs.2 to 3 thousand per month. He further submitted that the Tribunal has also erred in awarding Rs.5,000 towards medical charges.
5 However, 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