1. By way of filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellants – original claimants have challenged the judgment and order dated 31st July 1996 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Ahmedabad in MAC Petition No.24 of 1992 whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.7,05,600 to the claimants. 2 The short facts of the present appeal are that on 3rd December 1991 between 2.45 PM to 3.00 PM the injured was going on Scooter with her daughter Pinki. It was being driven on the left hand side of the road at a moderate speed. It is their case when they were going towards Mirzapur, the offending municipal bus bearing registration No.GRS 8715 came at a great speed and dashed with said Scooter from behind due to which the claimant and her daughter both fell down. Because of said collision,the claimant sustained severe injuries. She was removed to VS Hospital and was kept as indoor patient. She therefore filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.8 lakhs.
3 The claimant was 44 years of age and at the time of accident she was managing Public Call Office earning around Rs.8,000 per month. Because of the injuries sustained by her in the accident, she became paraplegic and below the waist line her body became paralytic. She took treatment at various hospitals for several times. The Tribunal considered the future loss of income at Rs.900 per month and considering her age adopted multiplier of 12. Therefore, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,29,600 under that head. The Tribunal in all granted Rs.7,05,000 to the claimants, the break up of which is as under:
● Pain, Shock and Suffering Rs.1,00,000
● Expenses on medical treatment Rs.3,00,000
● Gratuitous service of attendants Rs. 40,000
● Expenditure incurred by attendants Rs. 36,000
● Towards transport, special food loss of income,etc. Rs.1,00,000
● Future loss of income Rs.1,29,000 Total Rs.7,05,000
4 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding the Driver of the AMTS Bus solely negligent for the accident. He has also submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding excess amount under the head of Pain, Shock and Suffering.
5 Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr Sandip Shah has supported the judgment and order of the Tribunal and prayed that no interference is called for. He has also relied upon decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in First Appeal No.2071 of 2005 dated 23rd December 2011 wherein the Division Bench of this Court awarded Rs.4 lakhs to the claimants therein under the head of pain, shock and suffering. However, since no Cross Objections are filed, no additional amount can be granted.
6 On the point of contributory negligence, in paragraphs 8 and 9 the Tribunal has discussed the evidence and came to the conclusion that the Driver of the AMTS Bus is solely negligent in causing the accident.
7 Considering the reasoning of the learned Tribunal, I am of the view that no interference is called for. Taking into consideration the disability and other factors and age factor the amount awarded is just and proper and no interference is called for. The appeal is devoid of any merits. No interference is called for. Hence, dismissed.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd