1. By way of this appeal, the present appellant-original claimants has challenged the judgement and award dated 30.03 2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Main), Bharuch, in M.A.C.P. No.803 of 1992, whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.2,47,000/- to the claimant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of application till realization.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that in a vehicular accident one Shantilal Bhikhabhai Parmar, appellant herein, sustained grievous injuries and therefore, he filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.803 of 1992 before the Tribunal for compensation. The learned tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after recording the evidence decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated hereinabove against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant-original claimant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation to the appellant. He further contended the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on lower side, it should be 16. He further contended that the Tribunal has committed error in awarding compensation under the head of pain shock and suffering as the appellant was bed-ridden for two years and in para 21 has observed the the appellant is entitled for Rs.25,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. However, Therefore, has awarded Rs.20,000/- under the said. Therefore, he prayed to allow this appeal.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents have opposed the appeal and have prayed to dismiss the same, as being without merit.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record as well as the judgement and award of the tribunal. There is no dispute about the monthly income of the deceased, which is at Rs.2000/- per month. Before the Tribunal 30% disability is agreed between the parties, therefore, the appellant is entitled to Rs.600/- towards monthly loss of income and accordingly annually it comes to Rs.7200/-. Tribunal has committed an error in adopting the multiplier of 15. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2009(6) SCC, 121 it should be 16. If multiplier of 16 is considered, the dependency come to Rs. 1,15,200/-, whereas the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,08,000/- under the said head.
6. I also find that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding Rs. 20,000/- under the head of pain shock and suffering, as the appellant was bed-ridden for two years, and in para 21 has observed that the appellant is entitled for Rs.25,000/- under the head of pain shock and suffering. However, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.20,000/- under the said head. Therefore, I am of the view, if additional amount of Rs.17,500/- is granted under the head of pain, shock and suffering, the same would met ends of justice. Rest of the award are just and appropriate therefore, they are not disturbed.
7. In that view of the matter, the appellant is entitled for additional amount of Rs.24,700/- [Rs. 7200/- under the head of future loss of income + Rs. 17,500/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering] alongwith interest at the rate of 7 ½ per cent from the date of filing of the application till realization.
8. The judgement and award of the tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The decree be drawn accordingly. present appeal is partly allowed.
[K.S.JHAVERI,J.] pawan Top