1. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 30.01.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 494 of 1996 so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 3,68,000/- as compensation with interest and costs.
2. It is the case of the appellant that on 27.04.1996 the appellant was travelling in an Ambassador Car bearing registration No. GJ-10-T 1786 which was being driven by the one Deveshkumar. At that time, a Toyota vehicle bearing registration no. GJ-4T-6497 came from the opposite direction driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which both the vehicles dashed with each other. The appellant sustained serious injuries and therefore filed claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 6 lakhs. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
3. Mr. Chetan Pandya, learned advocate assisted by Mr. Maulik Vakharia for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that the appellant's monthly income is only Rs. 3000/- even though he earned Rs. 5000/- per month. He submitted that having regard to the fact that the deceased was only 26 years old the Tribunal ought to have taken prospective income into account.
3.1 Mr. Pandya further submitted that the Tribunal has seriously erred in not considering the disability properly. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have assessed the disability at 46% which is borne out from the testimony of the doctor. He also submitted that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on lower side considering the age of the appellant. In support of his submission, Mr. Pandya has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121.
3.2 Mr. Pandya further submitted that considering the fact that the appellant remained as an indoor patient in the hospital for 105 days and also was bed ridden for almost 22 months, the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs. 50000/- for pain shock and suffering and actual loss considering income for around 22 months. He submitted that the appellant produced bills for medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 131000/- which ought to have been considered by the Tribunal.
4. Mr. Parikh, learned advocate for the respondent strongly supported the impugned award and submitted that the same is just and proper. He submitted that the Tribunal has considered the prospective income of the appellant at Rs. 3000/- and there is no documentary evidence regarding the income. He submitted that amount awarded under pain shock and suffering and actual loss of income do not call for any interference. He however, conceded that the multiplier adopted is on lower side. He submitted that even the disability assessed is just and proper considering the body as a whole. He submitted that there is no specific evidence qua medical expenses.
5. In the present case the Tribunal has assessed the prospective income of the appellant at Rs.3000/-. Nothing is pointed out to take a different figure in that regard. In the present case the disability is assessed by the Tribunal at 30%. Accordingly the loss of income will be Rs. 900/- per month and per annum it would be Rs.10,800/-.
5.1 In the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 it is held as under:
“The multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M- 17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years and M- 13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M- 9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”
5.2 As per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), I am of the view that, looking to the age of the claimant, the multiplier of 16 awarded in the present case is on lower side. The just and proper multiplier would be 17. Therefore the future loss of income would come to Rs. 1,83,600/- (Rs.10800 x 17).
6. As regards the rest of the awards under various heads, the actual loss of income is on lower side. The appellant was bed ridden for almost 22 months. This court thinks it fit to award Rs. 54000/- for the compensation under actual loss of salary. Rest of the award is just and proper.
7. Therefore the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs. 4,12,800/- (i.e. Rs.1,83,600/- for future loss of income + Rs. 25000/- for pain shock and suffering + Rs. 1,50,200/- for medical, transportation, special diet & attendant and Rs. 54000/- for actual loss of income). The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,68,000/- as compensation. Therefore, an additional amount of Rs.44,800/- is required to be paid to the appellant.
8. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 44,800/- alongwith interest at 7.5% from the date of application till realisation. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//