1. This appeal has been preferred for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhuj – Kutch in M.A.C.P. No.561/1993 vide judgment and award dated 24.04.2000 whereby, the appellant, original claimant, was awarded total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs, as against the total claim of Rs.10.00 Lacs.
2. The aforesaid claim petition came to be preferred in connection with the vehicular accident that occurred on 30.04.1993 involving a Motor Car bearing registration No. MH-1-1394. In the said accident, the appellant sustained severe bodily injuries and subsequently, filed the claim petition, which came to be partly allowed by way of the impugned award.
3. The main grounds under which the appellant has prayed for enhancement of compensation is that the incomes awarded under the heads of future loss, actual loss and pain shock and suffering are on the lower side. It has been submitted that while computing future loss, the Tribunal has not considered the aspect of rise in income, as has been provided by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121. It has been submitted that incomes awarded under the other two heads, viz. actual loss and pain shock and suffering, are less considering the period of hospitalization. Hence, the incomes under the above heads deserve to be enhanced.
4. None appears on behalf of respondents no.1 to 2. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 supported the impugned award and submitted that the compensation awarded is just and appropriate and hence, the same may not be disturbed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. The appellant had claimed his monthly income at the time of accident to be Rs.3,000/-. However, no documentary evidence was produced to prove the same. Considering the fact that the appellant was running a work-shop of auto mechanic, the Tribunal assessed his monthly income at Rs.2,500/-, which, in my opinion, is just and appropriate. However, I find that the Tribunal has not considered the aspect of rise in income, as has been provided in Sarla Verma's case (supra). Looking to the age of the appellant at the time of accident, a rise of 30% in income is required to be considered for the purpose of computing future loss of income. Accordingly, the monthly income would come to Rs.3,250/-. The Tribunal has assessed the permanent disability for the body as a whole at 25%, which is appropriate considering the medical evidence on record. Accordingly, the monthly loss of income would come to Rs.812.50 and the annual loss at Rs.9,750/-. The multiplier of 15 adopted by the Tribunal is appropriate and hence, the total income under the head of future loss would come to Rs.1,46,250/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,12,500/- only under the said head and hence, the appellant shall be entitled for additional amount of Rs.33,750/- under the head of future loss of income.
6. It appears from the record that though the actual loss of income for the appellant was for a period of more than one year, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of actual income by considering the loss for only six months. In my opinion, the amount awarded under the said head is also on the lower side when the evidence on record proves that the actual loss of income was for a much higher period. Considering the facts of the case, it would be appropriate to award actual loss for a period of twelve months, which would mean that the appellant shall be entitled for additional amount of Rs.15,000/- under the head of actual loss of income.
7. The appellant had to take necessary treatment for a considerable long period of time. Looking to the period of treatment, I find the amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded under the head of pain, shock and suffering to be on the lower side. In my opinion, if an amount of Rs.25,000/- is awarded under the said head, the same would meet with the ends of justice.
8. Thus, in all, the appellant shall be entitled for additional compensation of Rs.58,750/-. So far as the amounts awarded under other heads are concerned, the same are just, legal and appropriate and hence, I find no reasons to disturb the same.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. 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.58,750/- [Rupees Fifty eight thousand seven hundred and fifty only] along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization, over and above the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. 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/*