ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellant, original opponent no.2, has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and award dated 13.06.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Vadodara in M.A.C.P. No.163/1993 whereby, the claim petition was allowed in part and the appellant, along with original opponent no.1, was jointly and severally held liable to make payment of compensation to respondent no.1, original claimant.
2. The aforesaid claim petition was filed in connection with the vehicular accident that took place on 08.12.1992 involving a Scooter bearing registration No. GJ-6-H-449.
3. The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the impugned award mainly on the aspect of quantum. It has been submitted that the Tribunal has seriously erred in assessing the income of claimant at Rs.4,100/- and the prospective income at Rs.6,150/-. It has also been submitted that the claimant was 45 years of age at the time of accident and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have adopted the multiplier of 15. It is, therefore, submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be reduced appropriately.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Though served, none appears on behalf of the respondents. Before the Tribunal, the respondent-claimant had produced his salary slip vide Exhibit-30 to prove his income. From the said document, it appears that except the statutory deductions towards Provident Fund and Professional Tax, all other deductions were towards different kinds of loans / advances taken by the claimant for which monthly installments were being paid from the salary. Hence, in my opinion, the Tribunal was justified in assessing the monthly income at Rs.4,100/-.
5. However, it appears that Tribunal has erred in assessing the prospective income at Rs.6,150/-. Considering the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, a rise of 30% in income has to be considered for calculating prospective income for persons of the age group of the claimant. Thus, by adding 30% rise in income, the prospective income would come to Rs.5,330/-.
6. The Tribunal has assessed the total disability at 14% for the body as a whole on the basis of consensus between the parties. Thus, the monthly loss of income would come to Rs.746/- and annual loss at Rs.8,954.50. Looking to the age of claimant at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier would be 14. By adopting the said multiplier, the total amount under the head of future loss of income would come to Rs.1,25,361.60, which is rounded off to Rs.1,25,400/-. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,54,980/- under the above head. Hence, the excess amount of Rs.29,580/- is to be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company.
7. So far as the amounts awarded under the other heads are concerned, in my opinion, the same are just, legal and appropriate. Hence, I find no reasons to disturb the same.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the respondent, original claimant, shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,76,800/- [Rupees One lac seventy six thousand eight hundred only], along with interest and costs, as awarded by the Tribunal. The excess amount of Rs.29,580/- shall be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company.
The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.