1. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 10.03.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Porbandar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 59/2004 so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 2,90,000/-as compensation with interest and costs.
2. It is the case of the appellant that on 29.03.2004 while the appellant was going in a truck, another truck bearing registration no. GJ-3T-3138 being driven by the original opponent no. 3 in a rash and negligent manner abruptly applied brakes and therefore the truck of the appellant dashed against the said truck as result of which the appellant sustained injuries. The appellant therefore filed claim petition for compensation. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
3. Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the multiplier. He submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in not considering the age of the appellant as 25 though sufficient evidence was produced on record. He has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent supported the award of the Tribunal and submitted that the same does not call for any interference by this Court. However, learned advocate for the respondent could not controvert the issue of multiplier.
4. This Court heard the contentions advanced by the parties and perused the papers on record. The Tribunal has gone through the documentary evidence on record and come to the conclusion that the truck of the appellant dashed with the truck of opponent no. 3 from behind and in the said accident both the legs of the appellant were seriously injured. No interference is called for regarding the same.
5. As far as the aspect of quantum of compensation is concerned, it is clear that the Tribunal has considered the evidence on record. Learned advocate for the appellant has drawn the attention of this court to Ex. 27 which is the birth certificate of the appellant as per which his age is around 25 on the date of accident as he was born on 19.03.1979.
5.1 Therefore, the multiplier of 15 adopted by the Tribunal is on lower side. In the case of Sarla Verma & Ors (supra) it is held as under:
“The multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M- 17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years and M- 13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M- 9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”
5.2 As per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), I am of the view that, looking to the age of the claimants, the multiplier of 15 awarded in the present case is on lower side. The just and proper multiplier would be 17. The income assessed is just and proper. Therefore the future loss of income would come to Rs. 3,06,000/- (Rs.18000 x 18). The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 2,70,000/- under the said head and therefore an additional amount of Rs. 36,000/- is required to be awarded.
6. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 36000/- alongwith interest at 7.5% from the date of application till realisation. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//