1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award of the M.A.C.T. (Main), Vadodara, dated 20.12.1995, whereby the tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- along with 12 per cent interest.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on the date of alleged accident, while the appellant was proceeding on his scooter, he met with an accident with a motorcycle driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. As a result thereof, the appellant received severe bodily injuries. He, therefore, filed the above-mentioned claim petition, wherein the tribunal passed the impugned award. Hence, the present appeal.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant 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 tribunal erred in holding that drivers of both the vehicles were negligent to the extent of 50 per cent. The amounts awarded by the tribunal under different heads are meager, and therefore, he has prayed to allow the present appeal.
4. On the other hand learned Counsel for respondents have opposed the appeal and have prayed to dismiss the same, as being without merit.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. The case of the appellant before the tribunal was that on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1, he received severe bodily injuries and sustained disability, and hence, he is entitled to claim compensation. It is an admitted position that the present one is a case of head on collusion between the two, two- wheelers. The accident took place on the State Highway No.8 during the day time. Respondent No.1 did not enter the witness-box to explain the circumstances in which the alleged accident took place. A perusal of FIR and the panchnama of the scene of offence clearly suggest that had the drivers of both the vehicles taken reasonable care, the accident could have been avoided. Hence, the tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the drivers of both the vehicles were equally negligent. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant with regard to negligence requires to be rejected.
7. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, according to appellant, at the time of accident, he was getting salary of Rs.3893/-. It was further his case that, on account of the alleged accident, he sustained permanent partial disability to the extent of 50 per cent. He produced various documents viz. treatment- cart(Exhibit-50), certificate(Exhibit-57), case papers of Sayaji Hospital, Vadodara(Exhibit49) and also examined Dr. Yogesh Thakker(Exhibit-56), who had issued disability certificates(Exhibits-56 and 57). In spite of that the tribunal assessed the disability sustained by the appellant at only 10 per cent of the body as a whole and assessed his monthly loss of income at Rs.400/-. Hence, the contention raised by the learned advocate for the appellant with regard to disability and monthly loss of income assessed by the tribunal requires to be accepted. Taking into consideration the evidence led by the appellant, it would be just and proper if the disability sustained by him is assessed at 25 per cent of body as a whole. Thus, the monthly loss of income would come to Rs.(4000 X 25%)=Rs.1000/- and annual loss would come to Rs. (1000 X 12)=Rs.12,000/-.
8. The appellant was aged about 29 years at the time of accident, hence, the multiplier of 15 applied by the tribunal appears to be just and proper. Thus, the future loss of dependency would come to Rs.(12000 X 15)=1,80,000/-.
9. As regards the amounts awarded by the tribunal under the heads of pain, shock and suffering, past economic loss, incidental expenses etc. are concerned, the same being just and proper requires no interference.
10. In view of the above discussion, the total amounts towards compensation would come to Rs. (1,80,000 + 20,000 + 3000 + 5000)=208000/-.
However, in view of the fact that both the appellant and respondent No.1 were negligent to the extent of 50 per cent, the appellant shall be entitled to 50% of the amount of compensation i.e. Rs.1,04,000/-. The tribunal has already awarded Rs.50,000/- to the appellant, and hence, the appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.(104000 – 50,000)=54,000/-.
11. As regards the rate of interest is concerned, the tribunal has awarded 12 per cent interest on the original amount of award. However, taking into consideration the prevalent rate of interest, it would be just and reasonable, if the additional amount towards compensation is granted with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum.
12. In the result, the appeal is PARTLY ALLOWED. The appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.54,000/- towards compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application, till its realization. The judgment and awarded impugned in this appeal stands MODIFIED to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI,J.) Umesh/