1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 31.01.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.-IV), Kheda at Nadiad in M.A.C.P. No.710/1987 whereby, the claim petition was allowed in part and the appellant, original claimant, was awarded total compensation of Rs.1,58,200/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs.
2. The aforesaid claim petition was preferred in connection with the vehicular accident that took place on 09.12.1986 at around 2000 hrs. on the Rajupura - Khankuva road while the appellant was driving his auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. GTJ-8264. The said auto-rickshaw was dashed by a Tractor bearing registration No. GJU-7604 driven by respondent no.1 herein.
3. The main contention raised on behalf of the appellant-claimant is that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal while computing future loss of income is on the lower side. It is submitted that the multiplier of 17 should have been adopted in view of the principle rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. It is further submitted that the percentage of disability assessed by the Tribunal is also on the lower side. Considering the medical evidence, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the percentage of disability at 100% for the body as a whole. It is, therefore, requested that compensation be enhanced appropriately.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned award and submitted that the Tribunal has awarded just and appropriate compensation and therefore, the present appeal may not be entertained.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. None appears on behalf of respondent no.2, though served. The appellant had not produced any documentary evidence to prove his income. The Tribunal considered his notional monthly income at Rs.1,500/- looking to his profession, which, in my opinion, is just and reasonable. So far as the aspect of disability is concerned, it appears from the medical evidence on record that the appellant is not completely disabled to drive the auto-rickshaw but, there was some functional disability. Therefore, the Tribunal assessed the permanent partial disability at 50% for the body as a whole. Considering the medical evidence on record, the aforesaid assessment made by the Tribunal is also just and appropriate. Thus, the monthly loss of income would come to Rs.750/-.
6. However, on the issue of multiplier, I find that the same is not in consonance with the principle rendered in Sarla Verma's case (supra), wherein, the multiplier of 17 has been provided for claimant of the age group of the appellant. Thus, if we adopt the multiplier of 17, the total amount under the head of future loss of income would come to Rs.1,53,000 [750 x 12 x 17]. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,35,000/- under the above head. Hence, the appellant shall be entitled for additional amount of Rs.18,000/- under the above head.
7. So far as the amounts awarded under other heads are concerned, the same are just and appropriate and I find no reasons to enhance the same.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellant, original claimant, shall be entitled for additional compensation of Rs.18,000/-
[Rupees Eighteen thousand only] along with interest at the rate of 07.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/* Top