1. Since, both the appeals arise out of a common judgment and award, they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. First Appeal No. 1235 of 1992 is preferred by the original claimant, whereas First Appeal No. 1443 of 1992 is preferred by the original defendants, challenging the judgment and award of the M.A.C.T.(Auxi.), Ahmedabad(Rural), dated 19.02.1992, rendered in M.A.C.P. No. 754 of 1986, whereby the tribunal awarded Rs.1,36,500/- along with 15 per cent interest per annum.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that on account of a vehicular accident which took place, on 27.02.1986, between a jeep and a truck, the original claimant, who was travelling in the said jeep, received severe bodily injuries. He, therefore, filed the aforesaid claim petition, wherein the tribunal passed the impugned award. Hence, the present appeal.
4. The learned Counsel for the original claimant has raised various contentions. He submitted that the tribunal erred in passing the impugned judgment and award. The tribunal failed to appreciate the material on record in its true perspective. The amount awarded by the tribunal is meager, and therefore, he has prayed to allow the present appeal.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the original defendants has opposed the appeal filed by the original claimant mainly contending that since the insurance policy of the offending vehicle was not produced on the record of the tribunal, the tribunal ought not to have held them liable to satisfy the claim and has prayed to dismiss the appeal of the original claimants and has prayed to allow the appeal filed by them.
6. Heard, learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
7. To prove the factum of accident, the original claimant, who happens to be an eye- witness, examined himself vide Exhibit-76 and his wife vide Exhibit-81, whereas the owner of the offending truck also examined himself at Exhibit-
108 to controvert the case put forward by the original claimant. I have also perused the FIR and the Panchnama of the scene of incident, which reveal that this is a case of head on collusion. If the contents of Panchnama are perused minutely, it becomes clear that had the drivers of both the vehicle taken reasonable care and caution, the accident could have been avoided. Hence, I am of the opinion that the tribunal has rightly held that the drivers of both the vehicles were negligent to the extent of 50:50 per cent.
8. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, according to the original claimant, he was a commerce graduate and used to do work of writing accounts and thereby he used to earn Rs.2460/- per month. It was also his case that on account of the alleged accident he lost vision of left eye and in support thereof he also produced a certificate(Exhibit-83) issued by Dr.
B.R. Nayak. Taking into account all such evidence produced by the claimant, the tribunal assessed the disability sustained by him at 20 per cent of the body as a whole and awarded Rs.1,08,000/- by applying the multiplier of 15. However, while doing so the tribunal seems to have failed in taking into account the future rise in income.
9. It is an admitted position that the claimant did not produce any evidence to substantiate his say that he was earning Rs.2460/- per month. In that view of the matter, here, it would be relevant to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of “SMT. SARLA DIXIT & ANR. VS. BALVANT YADAV & ORS.”, reported in 1996(3) SCC 179, wherein the tribunal has laid down the method of calculating the income. Thus, applying the ratio laid down in the above referred judgment, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.[(2500 X 2)=5000/-, (5000 + 2500)=7500, (7500/2)]=3750/-. since, the claimant has sustained 20 per cent disability of the body as a whole, the loss of monthly income would come to Rs.[(3750 – 20%)=750/- and the annual loss would come to Rs. (750 X 12)=9,000/-.
10. The tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15, which looking to the age of the claimant appears to be on a lower side. Hence, if the multiplier of 16 is applied, the same would meet the ends of the justice. Hence, applying the multiplier of 16, the loss of future income would come to Rs.(9000 X 16)=1,44,000/-, whereas the tribunal has awarded only Rs.1,08,000/- under the said head. Hence, the claimant shall be entitled to an addition amount of Rs.(1,44,000 – 1,08,000)=Rs.36,000/- under the said head.
11. As regards the amounts awarded under the other heads are concerned, the same being just and reasonable, require no interference.
12. The tribunal has awarded the original amount of compensation along with 15 per cent interest, however, looking to the prevalent rate of interest it would be just and reasonable if the additional amount of compensation is awarded along with 7.5 per cent interest per annum.
13. As regards the contention raised by the original defendants with regard to non-production of insurance policy of the offending vehicle is concerned, from a perusal of the material on record, it transpires that the insurance policy of the offending vehicle was produced vide Exhibit-115 before the tribunal. Hence, the said contention requires to be rejected.
14. In the result, the appeal filed by the original claimant being First Appeal No.1235 of 1992 stands ALLOWED. The appellant, therein, shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.36,000/- under the head of loss of future income along with 7.5 per cent interest from the date of application, till its realization.
15. First Appeal No.1443 of 1992 filed by the original defendants fails and is DISMISSED, accordingly.
16. The judgment and order impugned in these appeals stands MODIFIED to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
Umesh/ (K.S. JHAVERI,J.)