1. By way of this application the appellant has challenged judgement and award dated 23.01.1986 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol, in M.A.C.P. No. 781 of 1982 whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,05,000/- with interest at the rate 6% p.a. and proportionate costs to the applicant to be paid by opponents Nos. 1 to 5.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
2.1 On 11.10.1981 at about 12.45 p.m. one Pravinsinh Vaghela was travelling in a State Transport Bus bearing No. GRT 7091 running between Gariadhar and Surat. Truck bearing No. GTY 5601 was coming from the opposite direction. The accident took place between both these vehicles because of rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. Out of this accident, right hand of Pravinsinh got crushed and was required to be amputated. The appellant has preferred M.A.C.P No. 781 of 1982 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol for getting compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
2.2 The Claims Tribunal vide order dated 23.01.1986 has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,05,000/- to the appellant to be paid by opponents Nos. 1 to 5. Being aggrieved by the said order present appeal has been preferred.
3. Counsel for the appellant submitted that at the time of accident the claimant-appellant was aged about 22 years. He submitted that the appellant has joined police department as a Police Constable and was taking training when the accident took place. He submitted that upon losing his right hand, he was declared unfit for the service of police department and has been relieved from service. Moreover, he submitted that if the accident had not occurred, the appellant would have continued in the service and would have reached atleast upto the post of Police-Sub-Inspector and could have got salary of Rs. 23,651/-. He further submitted that the tribunal has not considered prospective income. He requested to grant prospective income of Rs. 1,000/- p.m. for 17 years, Rs. 37,500/- towards pain, shock and suffering, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of amenities of life and 98% disability. Learned counsel for the appellant had requested to grant, additional amount of Rs. 95,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of application till realization.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Tribunal considered income of the claimant at Rs. 600 per month. As there is loss of 70% in earning capacity, Rs. 400 was considered to be future economic loss per month and Rs. 5000/- per year. The Tribunal then adopted multiplier of 15 and granted Rs. 75,000/- under the head of future economic loss. As the deceased was aged 22 years on the date of the accident, multiplier of 15 is on the lower side. In view of the decision of Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport corporation and anr. reported in 2009 ACJ 1928 multiplier of 18 for the person in the age group of 21 to 25 is proper, I am inclined to adopt such multiplier of 18. In my view loss of earning capacity at 70% on Rs. 900/- p.m. comes to Rs. 630/- per month. Applying multiplier of 18, it comes to Rs. 1,36,080/- per annum whereas the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 75,000/- only. Hence, in my view the applicant is entitled to Rs. 61,080/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of the application. The tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, which in my view, is just and proper.
5. The Tribunal ought to have considered future economic prospects. The income of the injured should be considered as per Rs. 900 per month.
6. Out of the additional amount of compensation of Rs. 61,080/-, original opponents Nos. 1 to 3 shall have to pay Rs. 48,864/- while opponents Nos. 4 and 5 shall have to pay Rs. 12,216/- as their liability is fixed as 80% and 20% respectively. No interference is called for on other heads.
7. The judgement and award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. Appeal is allowed partly. No order as to costs.
JYOTI
[K.S.JHAVERI, J.]