NAGINBHAI DAHYABHAI BHARWAD Vs. RATANSING ADESING PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-claimant, being partly aggrieved by the award dated 17th March, 1982, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bharuch in M.A.C.P. No.13 of 1981, is before this Court with a submission that the learned Tribunal below erred in awarding less compensation to the claimant, who had suffered amputation of one of the legs below knee.

(2.) In absence of the cross objections or cross appeals from the side of the respondents, this Court is not required to look into the details as to how the accident took place, whether the driver was rash and negligent or not and whether the learned Tribunal below was justified in fixing the liability of the respondents. This Court is required to consider the question of compensation only.

(3.) After taking me through the evidence, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal below, while holding that the average income of the appellant could be Rs.300 - Rs.400, erred in holding that the income could be Rs.300/- per month and erred in holding the future loss of income to be Rs.100/- only. He submitted that other evidence available on the record would clearly show that the income of the injured claimant could safely be assessed at Rs.500/- per month. He submitted that the learned Tribunal below for no good reason held the loss to the extent of Rs.100/- per month, while, in fact, on the assessment of the lower Court itself, the loss should have been assessed at Rs.200/- per month towards future economic loss and Rs.400/- for the period of two years when the appellant-claimant could not attend to the work. Shri Hakim further submitted that the learned Tribunal below was unjustified in applying the multiplier of 15 (fifteen), while looking to the age of the claimant, the multiplier of 18 (eighteen) should have been applied.