1 The Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, [for short, 'the Act'] challenging the judgment and award dated 30th July 2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Gandhidham, at Kutch, in M.A.C. Petition No.211 of 2000, whereby, the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,82,880/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization in favour of the claimant and against the opponents jointly and severally.
2 Claim application under Section 163A of the Act before the Tribunal had arisen out of an accident arising out of use of vehicle GJ-12-V-7484 [chakda] which was stationary and Tractor GJ-12-V-8359 with Trolley GJ-12-V-3344 hit the above chakda from the back side and the claimant who was standing nearby and, thereby, the claimant suffered grievous injuries and the left hand of the claimant was amputated.
3 The Tribunal after considering medical evidence determined 60% of permanent disability against 70% so assessed in the medical certificate. After considering the deposition of the claimant about age and income against the assertion of Rs.4000/- per month, the Tribunal determined and assessed monthly income of the claimant at Rs.2700/- and, considering 60% disability, applying 17 multiplier to the claimant aged about 25 years, compensation was awarded accordingly.
4 Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company would submit that the claimant had not brought any material on the record of the case before the Tribunal to show that he was aged around 25 years or had income of Rs.4000/- per month, and, in absence thereof, the Tribunal could not have awarded future loss of income by considering Rs.2700/- as monthly income. Further, the applicability of multiplier of 17 in the above circumstance was contrary to the Second Schedule. It is also submitted that the chakda was not a passenger vehicle. On these three major counts, namely, income, age of the claimant and nature of vehicle, the impugned award of the Tribunal deserves to be quashed and/or modified accordingly.
5 Though served, no one appears for the claimants.
6 Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and upon consideration of the record of the case and the impugned award, the nature of accident, as reflected in the panchanama and deposition of the claimant, would reveal that the rickshaw [chakda] was stationary and its tyre got punctured and, therefore, it was to be repaired and the claimant was standing besides the rickshaw and the offending tractor and trolley hit him and the rickshaw from the back. In the above backdrop of factual aspect about the accident and considering the determination of a meagre income of Rs.2700/- per month of the claimant who also deposed about his age about 25 years, the Tribunal was justified in applying multiplier of 17 while considering future loss of income, which does not require any interference. There is no substance in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.) (swamy) Top