1. By way of this appeal, the present appellant-original claimant has challenged the judgement and award dated 14.06.2000, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Main), Surendranagar, in M.A.C.P. No.681 of 1995, whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.2,01,668/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of application till realization.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that in an vehicular accident, one Pranav Jayantibhai Dave, sustained grievous injuries, therefore, he filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.681 of 1995, before the Tribunal for compensation. The Tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after recording the evidence decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated hereinabove against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant-original claimants.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the notional income. He further contended that the disability assessed by the Tribunal is also on lower side, it should be 40% instead of 17.5%. He further contended that loss of salary awarded by the tribunal is also on lower side. Therefore, he prayed to allow this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgement and award of the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record has passed the award therefore, he prayed to allow this appeal.
5. I have heard learned advocates appearing for both the parties. I find that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the annual notional income at Rs.15,000/-. Before the Tribunal the appellant had produced the disability certificate at Exh.54, issued by Dr. Kamlesh Parikh, wherein he had assessed the permanent disability of the appellant to the extent of 40%. However, the Tribunal has not believed the same as Dr. Kamlesh Parikh has not assigned any cogent reason for assessing disability to the extent of 40%. One another certificate issued Dr. Sudhir Joshi at Ex.55, wherein he has assessed the disability of the appellant to the extent of 35%. The Tribunal has believed the certificate of Dr. Sudhir Joshi because he has examined the appellant for a period of one year after the accident and thereafter issued disability certificate at Exh. 55 and accordingly the Tribunal has assessed 17.5% for the body as a whole. I am in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal in assessing the disability of the appellant to the extent of 17.5% for the body as a whole.
6. I also find that the Tribunal has committed an error in adopting the multiplier of 16, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr.
reported in 2009(6) SCC, 121 it should be 16. If multiplier of 18 is adopted, future loss of income comes to Rs.47,250/-, whereas the Tribunal has awarded Rs.42,000/- under the head of future loss of income.
7. In that view of the matter, the appellants are entitled to additional amount of Rs.5250/- along with interest at the rate of 7 ½ per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application till realization.
8. The judgement and award of the tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The decree be drawn accordingly. present appeal is partly allowed.
[K.S.JHAVERI,J.] pawan Top