1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award rendered by the learned Motor Accident Tribunal (Aux), Ahmedabad City Civil Court, on 22.12.2003, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.597 of 2003, whereby the Tribunal awarded in all Rs.80,000/- by way of compensation to the appellant-claimant with running interest at the rate of 9% per-annum from the date of filing of said claim
were original opponents in the claim petition to pay the amount. The appellant felt that the amount awarded by way of compensation is very inadequate and less, and therefore, preferred the instant appeal claiming enhancement of the amount of compensation at least to the extent of Rs.1,25,000/-.
2. As per the case of the claimant, vehicular accident occurred on 12.12.1994, at about 11.30 p.m., and at that time, the appellant- original claimant was passing on his scooter in the area called Dandiya Bazar in the city of Baroda and according to him, at that time, one luxury bus bearing registration no.GQB-36 came with full speed rashly and negligently and dashed violently with his scooter and as a result, the claimant sustained serious bodily injuries. According to the claimant, the injuries resulted into permanent bodily disability. He had to incur expenses for his treatment, medicine, transportation etc. It was his case that at the time of accident, he was labourer by profession and he used to earn Rs.2700/- per month. Initially he filed the aforementioned claim to recover Rs.50,000/- but he enhanced his claim by way of amendment to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/-. The respondent no.2 resisted the claim petition of the claimant by filing written- statement at Exh.8 and interalia denied all the allegations made by the claimant in his claim petition. The Tribunal then recorded oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and ultimately, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred because of sole rash and negligent driving of the luxury bus by its driver. The Tribunal while calculating the amount of compensation considered the medical evidence on record as well as the disability certificate wherein the disability to the extent of 23% body as a whole was assessed by the Medical Officer, but it has been observed by the Tribunal that the learned advocates representing both the parties agreed to consider permanent disability at 10%. The Tribunal then came to the conclusion that considering the future prospective income of the claimant at Rs.3000/- and considering 10% bodily disability affecting his earning capacity, the monthly loss would come to Rs.300/- and annual loss would come to Rs.3600/-. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 15 years and came to the conclusion that the claimant was entitled to recover Rs.54,000/- towards future loss of income. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering and Rs.10,800/- (2700 X 4) for loss of actual income for four months. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.5200/- for transportation and special diet. Thus, the Tribunal in all awarded Rs.80,000/- by way of compensation.
3. Mr.Shah, learned advocate for the appellant- original claimant, at the outset, submitted that the Tribunal erred in not awarding just and reasonable compensation to the claimant. It has been submitted that the Tribunal erred in not properly assessing the future prospective income of the claimant. It is further submitted that admittedly, at the time of accident, the claimant was aged about of 25 years, but the Tribunal adopted and applied multiplier of 15 years contrary to the ratio laid-down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. and others, reported in 2009(6) SCC 121.
3.1 Mr.Shah, learned advocate for the appellant-original claimant, asserted that despite the fact that the claimant sustained serious bodily injuries which resulted into fracture, but not a single amount is awarded to him under the head of medical expenses. It is, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal should have adopted multiplier of 18 years as per the ratio laid-down in Sarla Verma's Case (Supra) and the Tribunal should have adopted reasonable future loss of income of the applicant and appropriate amount towards medical expenses.
4. Mr.Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondent no.2, at the outset, supported the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal and submitted that the amount awarded by way of compensation to the claimant is just and proper and the appeal deserves dismissal.
5. I have considered the record and proceedings in context with the submissions advanced on behalf of the both the sides.
6. Since, the instant appeal is filed by the original claimant for enhancement and there is nothing on record that either of the respondents preferred any cross-appeal or filed any cross-objections in this appeal, the finding arrived by the Tribunal regarding the issue no.1 about the negligence is not required to be interfered with. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of sole negligence of driver of the luxury bus . What is assailed in this appeal by the original claimant is the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It has been submitted that the Tribunal erred in not properly considered the future prospective income of the claimant. The Tribunal has discussed oral evidence adduced by the claimant himself and in Paragraph-13 of the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal observed that the claimant submitted that he was serving in telephone booth and he was earning Rs.1000/- per month and he further deposed that he was earning Rs.700/- per month. It further transpires that the claimant did not examine his employer in support of his case about his actual income. It further transpires that no documentary evidence was produced by the claimant showing his actual income. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that when the Tribunal considered Rs.3000/- per month as future prospective income, it cannot be said that the Tribunal committed any error.
7. However, the Tribunal applied multiplier of 15 year. It has come on record that at the time of accident the claimant was aged about 25 years. In that view of the matter, considering the ratio laid-down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's Case (Supra), this Court is of the opinion that the appropriate multiplier which the Tribunal should have adopted was 18 years. In the judgment and award, the Tribunal further observed that during the course of arguments, though the disability of body as a whole which the medical officer assessed was 23% but with the consent of learned advocates representing both the sides agreed that the permanent disability to be calculated at 10%. In that view of the matter, considering the future prospective income at Rs.3000/- per month, it can safely be said that monthly future loss would Rs.300/- and annual loss would come to Rs.3600/- and after applying the multiplier of 18 years, the total amount would come to Rs.64,800/-. Thus, the appellant-claimant is entitled to recover Rs.64,800/- under the head of future loss of income. The Tribunal awarded Rs.54000/- under this head, and therefore, the appellant- original claimant is entitled to recover Rs.10,800/- more under this head. Perusing the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal, it is true that the Tribunal did not grant any amount under the head of medical expenses. Considering the Para-12 of the impugned judgment and award, it transpires that it has come on record that Rs.1000/- came to be paid to Dr.Atul Bhatt who assessed the disability. It further transpires that the appellant-claimant was treated by the Government Hospital. In that view of the matter, considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case and considering the nature of injury sustained by the claimant, this Court is the opinion that the appellant-claimant is entitled to recover Rs.2000/- by way of medical expenses, reach diet and attendance charges. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering, Rs.10,800/- under the head of actual loss of income and Rs.5200/- for transportation and other miscellaneous expenses and this Court is of the opinion that no error appears to have been committed by the Tribunal while awarding the said amount.
8. In above view of the matter, the claimant is entitled to recover Rs.10,800/- more under the head of loss to the future income and Rs.2000/- under the head of medical expenses, reach diet, attendance charges etc. Thus, the appellant-claimant is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.12,800/- more by way of compensation. The Tribunal awarded running interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of original claim petition till the realization. The original claim petition came to be filed in the year-1996. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant-claimant is entitled to recover above enhanced amount with running interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the original claim petition till the realization. Accordingly, the instant appeal deserves to be partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal deserves to be partly modified.
9. For foregoing reasons, the instant appeal is partly allowed and the judgment and award rendered by learned Motor Accident Tribunal (Aux), City Civil Civil Court, Ahmedabad, on 22.08.2003 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.597 of 1996, is hereby modified and it is directed that the appellant-claimant is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.12,800/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Eight Hundred only) more by way of compensation with running with running interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the original claim petition till the realization. The rest of the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal is not interfered with and shall remain intact. The aforesaid amount when deposited shall be paid to the appellant-claimant by way of account payee cheuque. The appellant-Insurance Company shall deposited the above referred enhanced amount of compensation within four weeks hereof. No costs.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA,J.)
Girish