Judgment:
Bhawani Singh, C.J.
1. These two appeals M.A. No. 139 of 1995 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pradip Kumar) and M.A. No. 373 of 1995 (Pradip Kumar v. Ramchandra) are proposed to be decided by this judgment since they arise out of the same award dated 6.12.1994 passed by the 13th Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, in Claim Case No. 100 of 1991. M.A. No. 373 of 1995 has been preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation while M.A. No. 139 of 1995 is by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. for reduction of the compensation awarded in the case.
2. Briefly facts are that Pradip Kumar (hereinafter 'the claimant') met with an accident on 8.1.1988 when truck No. CII 7461 dashed against his scooter No. CPE 7329. The truck was being driven by Gajraj and was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. As a result of this accident, the claimant was shifted to M.Y. Hospital, Indore. Thereafter, he was shifted to Gokul Das Hospital, Indore, because better treatment was available there. On account of this accident the claimant suffered injuries on the right leg and lumbar spinal, which are later described in the medical report to the extent of 15 and 70 per cent permanent disability respectively.
3. The claimant preferred claim petition before the Claims Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000, later the petition was amended and claim for Rs. 10,00,000 was made. Allegation of the claimant is that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the truck, otherwise, it would not have taken place. The defence taken by the insurance company is that negligence is attributable to the claimant, who was not driving the scooter in the proper way which resulted in the accident. It is also stated that the claimant did not suffer the disability to the extent of 70 per cent as stated in the certificate. It is stated that the claim petition deserves to be dismissed. Owner and the driver of the truck have not come forward to oppose the claim, therefore, they were proceeded ex parte. After appreciating the evidence led and hearing the parties the learned Tribunal allowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 3,08,369.80 on all the heads carrying interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of filing of the claim application till date of passing of the award thereafter 12 per cent till payment. As stated above, both the parties are not satisfied with this award, therefore, these two appeals have been filed by them challenging the same.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.
5. The first question for determination is whether just compensation has been awarded to the claimant in this case. Since there is no dispute with respect to taking place of the accident at the instance of the driver of truck insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. At the time of the accident, the claimant was 25 years old. He was law graduate, who was engaged in his own business under the name and style of 'Pradip Kumar & Company, Indore'. He claims that he was earning Rs. 25,000 per annum and was a tax payer. This fact, he has proved by production of income tax return, accounting year 1986-87 and assessment year 1987-88 as also by Exh. P-372, return for the accounting year 1987-88, assessment year 1988-89, only for the nine months. It is submitted that due to this accident, the claimant has been rendered incapable of earning anything. He is undergoing treatment right from the date of accident till date. Nothing has been awarded for the future treatment to be undertaken so the award is to be enhanced. It is also submitted that compensation has been calculated by application of multiplier of 15 though multiplier of 18 is applicable taking into consideration the total incapacity of the claimant. The award of compensation under the head of pain and suffering is low, therefore, deserves to be enhanced.
6. Mr. Surjeet Singh, learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 15 and calculated the loss on that basis by assessing the income of the claimant at Rs. 15,000 per year. It is also submitted that against claim of Rs. 1,20,689, Rs. 1,20,000 have been awarded for treatment. Towards pain and suffering award of Rs. 15,000 is quite reasonable. He prays for maintenance of the award passed by the Tribunal.
7. From the submission of the claimant, it is absolutely clear that after the accident, his capacity to earn has been completely eliminated. He cannot move about and attend business. He is undergoing treatment continuously from the date of the accident. Therefore, accepting his treatment it is a case of 100 per cent disability and the claimant-appellant is undergoing pain and suffering continuously. We, therefore, in the facts of the case, the actual income of the claimant can be taken at Rs. 20,000 per annum described in the income tax return discussed hereinbefore. Then, multiplier in this case should be 18 looking to his age, disability and loss of business. Thus, the amount of compensation shall be (18 x Rs. 20,000) Rs. 3,60,000. The claimant shall be entitled to amount of Rs. 50,000 towards future treatment, in addition to Rs. 1,20,000 already awarded. That apart, claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 1,00,000 towards pain and suffering, loss of marriage prospects and other amenities of life, etc., taking the compensation amount to Rs. 6,30,000 in this case under all heads.
8. Next question is at what rate interest should be awarded to the claimant. It was contended by Mr. Surjeet Singh that claimant was responsible for the delay as found by the Claims Tribunal, therefore, interest awarded by the Tribunal is justified. True it is that claimant has delayed the proceedings on some occasions, therefore, it would be desirable to award the interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of application till 4.9.1994 when last witness was examined from the side of the claimant. Thereafter the claim will carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum till date of payment.
9. Appeal of the claimant, i.e., M.A. No. 373 of 1995 is allowed to the extent indicated above and the appeal of the insurance company, i.e., M.A. No. 139 of 1995 is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Balance amount of the compensation be paid to the claimant within two months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment.