This appeal under Section 173 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, `The Act 1988'] is filed by the appellant-claimant, for enhancement, against the judgment and award dated 06.07.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Aux-IV], Gandhinagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 574 of 1991 whereby the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,13,480/- with interest @9% p.a against the opponents holding them jointly and severally liable at 50% + 50%..
2. At the outset, learned advocate for the appellant restricted his challenge against the impugned judgment and award on two grounds viz. [i] the appellant, aged about 42 years at the time of accident, was serving as a Chief Booking Clerk in Western Railways and earning monthly salary of Rs.2,900/- and due to injuries and disability, he had to forego the promotion to the post of Commercial Instructor in Western Railways and thereby his promotional chances were adversely affected; and [ii] the multiplier of 12 applied to the appellant was on lower side and actually multiplier of 14 ought to have been applied, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009)6 SCC 121].
3. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:
3.1 On 29.03.1990 at about 10.45 a.m, the appellant was travelling in S.T. Bus bearing No. GRU-9733 from Gandhinagar to Ahmedabad. At that time, near the Sim of village Amiyapur, accident took place as the opponent No.3 i.e. the driver of Truck bearing No.GRR-4468 came with full speed and collided with S.T. Bus bearing GRU-9733. As a result of the said accident, the appellant sustained fracture injury on his right leg and received other injuries on other parts of the body. It is the case of the appellant that he was 41 years old at the time of accident and was working as Chief Booking Clerk in Western Railway and earning Rs.2,925/- p.m. It is further the case of the appellant that due to the accident, he had to incur a huge economic loss. He was bed ridden for more than 7 months and under various heads, he has claimed for the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from all the opponents.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that though the Tribunal had taken care of future loss of income by keeping in mind the monthly income of Rs.3,000/- and admitted disability of 14%, but did not consider the vital aspect of foregoing promotion as a Commercial Instructor in the pay scale of Rs.5500/- at Zonal Training Center at Udaipur. It is further submitted that multiplier of 12 was on lower side, and therefore, the order of the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal needs to be modified and claim amount be enhanced accordingly.
5. Mr.
Thakore, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.5 - United India Insurance Company and Ms. Falguni Patel, learned advocate appearing for the respondent - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. opposed the claim of the appellant-claimant on the ground of forgoing job as a Commercial Instructor at the Zonal Training School of Western Railway and submitted that in fact no loss was suffered by the appellant and it is clear from the deposition of the claimant that even after the accident and disability of 14%, the appellant continued to perform his duties with regular and periodical increments and at the time of deposition his monthly salary was Rs.11,000/-. It is submitted that the reasons stated by the appellant-claimant for not accepting the job in a higher grade as a Commercial Instructor at Udaipur was not based on sound and genuine reasoning and it cannot be considered to award loss towards future prospects and better avenues in service. It is also submitted that applying multiplier of 12 to the appellant, who is aged 42 years was just and appropriate at the relevant point of time and in absence of error in the judgment and award, no interference is called for by this Court and accordingly this appeal is required to be rejected.
6. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and upon consideration of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to accept the submissions of learned advocate for the appellant that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the future prospects of the deceased and loss of income. In fact, as a tutor in the training center, the appellant was not supposed to stand and deliver lecturers and the service of the appellant was fully protected and there was no loss of salary or even increments. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in not considering the future prospects of the appellant-claimant and it cannot be said that the judgment and award to the above extent is in any manner contrary to law on this issue.
7. However, considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma [supra], the multiplier of 12 awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant-claimant, who is aged 42 years at the time of accident appears to be on lower side and by considering the relevant aspects, the Tribunal ought to have awarded 14 as multiplier and the amount awarded under the above head needs to be enhanced.
8. Therefore, it is hereby held that keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma [supra], the above head viz. Annual Loss of Income of the appellant that income of Rs.3,000/- and 14% of disability and [Rs.3,000 x 14% = Rs.420 p.m. X 12 = Rs.5,040/-] yearly loss of income would come to Rs.5,040/-. Now by applying multiplier of 14 the appellant is entitled to receive future loss of income at Rs.5,040 x 14 = Rs.70,560 - Rs.60,480 = Rs.10,080.
9. The appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 06.07.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Aux-IV], Gandhinagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.574 of 1991 is modified to the aforesaid extent the appellant is entitled to receive an additional compensation of Rs.10,080/- with 9% interest from the date of claim petition till realization against opponents holding them jointly and severally liable at 50 % against respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and remaining 50% from respondent Nos.3, 4 & 5.
The deficit court fee is ordered to be paid by the appellant-original claimant.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent only.
The award to be drawn accordingly.
[Anant S. Dave, J.] *pvv Top