1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 18.08.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Main] Surendrangar in M.A.C.P. No. 835/2001, whereby the claim petition was partly allowed and the original claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.86,000/ along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the application till its realization.
2. The facts in brief are that on 27.07.2001 while Virambhai Dayabhai was walking on the side of the road, at that time, respondent no. 3 who was driving Motor Cycle bearing registration no. GJ13H2783, on account of rash and negligent driving dashed with Virambhai, as a result of which, Virambhai sustained severe bodily injuries. Later on, he filed claim petition, which came to be partly allowed, by way of the impugned award. Being aggrieved by the said award, the appellant Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the relevant factor pertaining to the injury and corresponding treatment while awarding compensation. It is contended that though the medical certificate assessed the permanent functional disability of the claimant at 7.5%, the Tribunal erred in assessing it at 15% only for the body as a whole.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It appears that the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.1,500/ and prospective income at Rs.2,250/ on the basis of the averment made in the claim petition as also the deposition of the claimant before the Tribunal. Thus, the monthly income and the prospective income assessed by the Tribunal, is just and appropriate.
5. So far as the issue of disability is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed it at 15% for the body as a whole. In my opinion, under any circumstance, the permanent disability could not have been assessed at 15% for the body as a whole when the Medical Certificate assessed the permanent functional loss at 7.5%. In my view, the percentage of permanent disability could be assessed at 7.5% for the body as a whole. Accordingly, the monthly loss of income would come to Rs.168.75/ and the yearly loss to Rs.2,025/. However, so far as the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is concerned, the same is on the lower side since the claimant was aged around 22 years at the time of accident. As per the decision rendered in the case of Sarla Varma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) SCC 121. the appropriate multiplier would be 18. Hence, the income under the head of future economic loss would come to Rs.36,450/. However, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.64,800/ under the said head. Therefore, excess amount of Rs. 28,350/ shall be refunded to the appellant Insurance Company.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that excess amount of Rs.28,350/ shall be refunded to the appellant Insurance Company along with interest. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/