Jayant Patel, J.
1. All the appeals are for enhancement of the compensation than awarded by the Tribunal as per its judgment and award dated 10-11-1987 in Claim Petition Nos. 745, 760 and 761 of 1983. It may be recorded that Appeal No. 1099 of 1988 is preferred against the award in M.A.C.P. No. 760 of 1983, whereas Appeal No. 1100 of 1988 is preferred against the award in M.A.C.P. No. 761 of 1983 and Appeal No. 1101 of 1988 is preferred against award in M.A.C.P. No. 745 of 1983. As common questions arise for consideration, they are being considered by this common judgment.
2. The short facts of the case appear to be that all the claimants-appellants were traveling in S.T. Bus bearing Registration No. GRR 8136. As per the claimants on 27-4-1983 at about 7 a.m., to 7-30 a.m., on the highway running between Fedara to Dhandhuka, the aforesaid S.T. Bus bound for Gariadhar from Ahmedabad. While proceedings from Fedara to Dhandhuka side, when was passing, with one truck bearing Registration No. MBF 993 came from the opposite side with high-speed and the abovesaid bus and the truck collided with one another and as a result thereof the bus went off the road on the left side, which resulted into injuries sustained by the appellants. As per the appellants, the driver of S.T. Bus was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The claimant preferred the aforesaid Claim Petition No. 745 of 1983 before the Tribunal for the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-, whereas Claim Petition No. 760 of 1983 was preferred for compensation of Rs. 70,000/-and Claim Petition No. 761 of 1983 was preferred for compensation of Rs. 80,000/. As per the claimants-appellants, the injury certificates as well as the disability certificates were produced, but though there was formal order passed by the Tribunal for exhibiting the admitted documents, the disability certificate of Dr. N. M. Shah having qualification of M.B.B.S., M.S. (Ortho) were not exhibited. The Tribunal thereafter, passed the common judgment and award, whereby it totally negatived the claim for compensation on the aspects of disability, since Dr. Shah was not examined and awarded compensation under different heads for the treatment, pain, shock, suffering, etc., and as per the award passed by the Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No. 745 of 1983, the compensation awarded is of Rs. 30,000/- with interest at the rate of 12%, whereas in Claim Petition No. 760 of 1983, the compensation awarded is of Rs. 20,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% and in Claim Petition No. 761 of 1983, the compensation awarded is of Rs. 35,000/- with interest at the rate of 12%. It is under these circumstances, the present appeals for enhancement of the compensation before this Court.
3. Heard Mr. Yagnik, learned Counsel for the appellants and Ms. Maya Desai for Mr. Pandya, learned Counsel for S.T. Corporation. The other parties to the proceedings as mentioned in the judgment have not appeared, except on behalf of the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation-Respondent No. 1 herein. Considered the record and proceedings of the Reference Court.
4. It appears that the only contention raised on behalf of the appellants for enhancement of the compensation is that in spite of the disability certificates were on record and though there was an order passed by the Tribunal for exhibiting the admitted documents the same were not exhibited, nor were considered by the Tribunal at the time when the award came to be passed, consequently resulting into no compensation whatsoever under the head of disability due to the injury. Whereas on behalf of Respondent No. 1, it has been contended that the documents were required to be proved and had the doctor been examined, the respondents could have opportunity of cross-examination, and therefore, it has been submitted that the certificate was rightly not considered by the Tribunal. She alternatively submitted that even if the certificates are considered, the disability as certified by the doctor would not be the same for the whole body disability and the normal criteria would be that such disability would get reduced by 50% if it is considered with the whole body disability, and therefore, it has been submitted that the certificate cannot be relied upon even by this Court while deciding the appeals.
5. It deserves to be recorded that in the depositions of each of the claimants, the injury sustained on various limbs of the body are stated and the major injury in respect of all the claimants are on the leg(s) with the fracture on the bone(s). The record and proceedings shows that the certificates of Dr. N.M. Shah in respect of all the claimants were produced and for the claimant Mansukhlal Mohanbhai, considering about 9 injuries, the doctor has certified after examination as that of 60% disability on the left leg and 15% disability on the right leg. Similarly for claimant Rameshkumar Popatlal in the same manner after considering the injury permanent partial functional disability is certified as that of 35% on the right lower limbs and 15% on left lower limbs. Even for claimant Prafulkumar Vashrambhai in the same manner after examination, the doctor has certified functional disability of 20% on the right leg and 15% on the left leg. In each of the certificate, details are mentioned of the injury suffered and the radiological examination. Even X-ray report and the treatment with the Government Hospital records are also produced.
6. It is true that in normal circumstances, the Tribunal while adjudicating the claim petition would rely upon the documents, which are produced and more particularly in the matter where the disability is to be proved after giving opportunity to cross-examine the said doctor by the opponents of the claim petition. However, the proceedings before the Tribunal are not strictly as that of the Civil Court and the powers of the Tribunal, while adjudicating the claim petition are summary power. Therefore, strict rules of evidence as applicable to the Civil Court while trying the suit may not apply in every case in the proceedings before the Tribunal. It may be that in normal circumstances, the Tribunal would be guided by the provisions of the law on the aspects of fact to be proved as per the Evidence Act, but such cannot be read as a sine qua non principle in every case. If the Tribunal finds that there is authenticated reliable material, it can be considered as a corroborative evidence on the aspects of disability, keeping in view the deposition of the claimant on the aspects of injury and gravity of such injury. At this stage, it would be profitable to refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Udaysinh Chandansinh Thakor and Ors. reported in : AIR2006Guj117 and more particularly, the observations made at Para 7 of the said decision, wherein the view taken is that strict rules of evidence would not apply in the proceedings before the Tribunal so as to result into creating a situation of hyper-technical view.
7. Therefore, it appears that there were peculiar facts and circumstances, in the present case namely that in the deposition of the injured concerned-claimant, the injury and the proof of injury is not only stated, but the record of the injury is also produced on record and that the Court had passed the order for exhibiting all admitted documents, I find that when the certificates of disability already were on record, the Tribunal could not have ignored the same. Upon re-appreciation of evidence of the claimants, depositions, cross-examinations and the perusal of the record of the injury certificates, the X-ray report, if considered with the disability certificates, even if further considered with the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the S.T. Corporation on the aspects that there will be further 50% reduction if the disability of the body is considered as a whole in comparison to the disability of a particular limb of the injured, then also I find that it would be just and proper to assess the disability of 30% as against the certificates of the. doctor of 60% so far it relates to claimant Mansukhlal. Similar will be the situation in case of claimant Rameshbhai for assessment of the disability of 17.5% as against the certificate of the doctor for 35% of the disability. So will be the position for claimant Prafulkumar for assessment of the disability of 10% as against the certificate of the doctor for 20%. Therefore, under these circumstances, based on such disability, the matter can be considered for awarding of the compensation to that extent, namely for Mansukhlal 30%, for Rameshbhai 17.5% and for Prafulkumar 10% disability.
8. It does appear from the record and on the said aspect there is no dispute that the Tribunal has not assessed the income of any of the claimants, and more particularly, because they were students at the time of accident. The year of accident is 1983, but it cannot be concluded even if the person was not having income at the time of accident, no amount deserves to be awarded towards compensation. As such, under these circumstances, the notional income of the person concerned, keeping in view the prospective income, is to be considered so as to assess the loss of functional disability of the persons concerned and also the loss of potential disability. Such principles are incorporated in the in-built scheme of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the legislature itself by providing second schedule for awarding of the compensation under Section 163A of the said Act. It is true that such Act of 1988 was not on the statute book, but the guiding effect can be considered to consider the notional income of the claimant students at that age for the assessment of the income as well as for applying multiplier, if not strictly, but taking the rough basis for such purpose. As per the Second Schedule, in case of injury, when the person is non-earning person, the legislature has provided for the income of Rs. 15,000/- p.a. in the year 1988, since the accident was in the year 1983, it would be reasonable to assess the notional income of the claimants of Rs. 10,000/- p.a. Considering the age of the injured claimants in all the cases, it would be reasonable to apply multiplier of 15 to the yearly income. Therefore, if Rs. 10,000/- per year is the notional income and the multiplier applied is 15, for the disability of 30% for the claimant Mansukhlal, the amount comes to Rs. 45,000/-. In the same manner, for claimant, Ramesh, the amount would come to Rs. 26,250/- and for the disability of 10% for claimant Prafulkumar, the amount of compensation would be Rs. 15,000/-. Hence, I find that based on the aforesaid disability of 30%, 17.5% and 10%, as the case may be, the concerned appellants/claimants were entitled to the compensation of Rs. 45,000/-, Rs. 26,250/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. Since, the Tribunal has not at all awarded any compensation on the aspect of disability of the claimants concerned, the award passed by the Tribunal deserves to be modified.
9. The next aspect, which may arise for consideration is awarding of interest on the aforesaid amount of compensation to the claimants concerned. Since, the Tribunal did not find it proper to award the compensation under the head of the disability, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to award interest on the said amount. However, it appears that for the compensation under the other heads, which has been awarded by the Tribunal for the accident of 1983 when the award was passed in the year 1987, the interest awarded is at the rate of 12% p.a. Since, on account of the error by the Tribunal in not awarding any compensation towards disability of the claimants and as observed by this Court hereinabove the claimants were entitled to the additional compensation towards disability, it would be just and proper if the interest is awarded at the rate of 12% from the date of claim application before the Tribunal till 1987 when the claim application came to be decided by the Tribunal. However, after January, 1988 onwards, it appears that since the appeals were preferred before this Court in the year 1988 and have continued for a long time as pending, it would be just and proper to order for payment of interest at the rate of 9% p.a., until the amount is deposited with the Tribunal.
10. In view of the aforesaid findings, observations and discussions, the appeals are allowed to the extent by observing and directing that the appellant of First Appeal No. 1099 of 1988 would additionally entitled to the compensation of Rs. 15,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of claim application before the Tribunal till December, 1987 and with further interest at the rate of 9% from January, 1988 till the amount is deposited with the Tribunal. The appellant of First Appeal No. 1100 of 1988 would be entitled to the additional compensation of Rs. 26,250/- with interest with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of claim application before the Tribunal till December, 1987 and with further interest at the rate of 9% from January, 1988 till the amount is deposited with the Tribunal. The appellant of First Appeal No. 1101 of 1988 would be entitled to the additional compensation of Rs. 45,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of claim application before the Tribunal till December, 1987 and with further interest at the rate of 9% from January, 1988 till the amount is deposited with the Tribunal. It is further observed and directed that all the appellants shall be entitled to the proportionate cost of the appeals.
11. The respondent No. 1-Corporation shall deposit the amount with the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. Since, the claimants' applications are of 1983 and sufficient time has passed, the Tribunal would permit the disbursement of the amount to the claimants concerned and I find that no investment deserves to be ordered in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Record and proceedings be returned to the Tribunal.
Direct Service is permitted.