1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 25.06.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main.), Mehsana in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1154 of 1994 wherein the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the aforesaid claim petition by awarding compensation in the sum of Rs. 75526/ along with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.
2.0 On 30.08.1994 at about 4.30 p.m. the claimant was standing on platform No.9 of the Mehsana ST depot to reach his village at Unava. Meanwhile one ST bus of the route of Mehsana to Kanthravi came on the platform. When the claimant was entering in the ST bus by catching the door with the help of right hand and his left hand was out of the door, the conductor of the bus closed the door as a result of which left hand of the claimant was crushed between door and he received serious injuries. He took prolonged treatment. He therefore, filed the aforesaid claim petition wherein the learned Tribunal passed the aforesaid award. This appeal is at the instance of claimant for enhancement of compensation.
3.0 Learned advocate for the appellant contended that learned Tribunal has committed error in not granting the amount towards pain, shock and suffering and under the head of actual loss; that the multiplier of 10 years applied by the learned Tribunal is on lower side. It should be 14 years as per the principles laid down in case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121.
4.0 Learned advocate for the respondent supported the judgement and award of the learned Tribunal and submitted that the appeal may be dismissed.
5.0 Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record.
6.0 As far as income and disability are concerned, the same are not disputed. The claimant was serving in Gujarat Electricity Board as Deputy Superintendent Accountant. He has received permanent disability at 9%. Considering the pay slip of August 1994 produced by the claimant he was earning Rs. 6627.44 ps only. Therefore, considering the income of Rs. 6627/ and 9% disability for body as whole, the monthly loss would come to Rs. 596.43/ and round figure would come to Rs. 560/ and the annual loss would come to Rs. 7200/ ( Rs.600x12). However, in view of the difference in the age of the claimant in the certificates, the Tribunal has considered his age at 45 years. The Tribunal has applied multiplier of 10 which is on lower side, multiplier of 14 ought to have been applied, in view of the decision of Sarla Verma (Supra). By considering the age of 45 years and by applying multiplier of 14 years, the future loss of income would come to Rs 100800/ ( Rs,7200/ x 14). The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 71280/ which in my opinion is on lower side. Therefore, there is an additional amount of Rs.29520/
7.0 Further, the claimant was on leave for the period of one month and one week but no deduction from the income was made by the G.E. Board. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that he has suffered any actual loss. However, he was advised for bed rest as per the certificate issued at Exh. 23 but while he has not suffered any actual loss, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the claimant is not entitled for actual loss. The claimant is also not entitled for pain, shock and suffering. The amount awarded towards medical bills and transportation are just and proper.
8.0 In the result, it is held that the claimant is entitled to a further sum of Rs. 29520/ in addition to the amount already awarded to him by the Tribunal. However, the interest on this additional amount will be only 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realization. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*