BHANGI KALABHAI GULABBHAI Vs. UMEDSINH RENSINH THAKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short) are preferred from the common judgment and award dated 29. 05. 2000 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Himatnagar, inter alia, in Motor Accident Claim Petitions No. 666 of 1989 and 691 of 1989. Both the appeals were filed and pressed for the purpose of enhancement of the amount of compensation and, therefore, details regarding the factum of accident are not required to be mentioned. Suffice it to say that the claims arose out of the motor accident that occurred on 20. 10. 1989 and the victims of the accident in both the cases were only injured and claimed to have suffered permanent disability.

(2.) IN First Appeal No. 684 of 2003, the appellant had relied upon the injury certificate at Ex. 49 and the parties had agreed to assess the disability at 12% for the body as a whole. The say of the appellant as regards his own income of Rs. 1,200/- per month was entirely accepted by the Tribunal for the purpose of basing the calculation of compensation, even though there was no supporting evidence in respect of his income or salary as a part-time sweeper. Learned counsel Mr. Dalal submitted that, after accepting the figure of income, the Tribunal had committed obvious arithmetical error in calculating the amount due on account of future loss of income and wrongly applied multiplier of 15 for the purpose of arriving at the figure of Rs. 19,500/- towards future loss of income. Similarly, in First Appeal No. 745 of 2003, the appellant had examined himself at Ex. 43 and submitted injury certificate at Ex. 64. The parties had agreed upon assessment of permanent disablement at 16% for the body as a whole. There was no worthwhile evidence of actual income of the appellant, even as he claimed to be earning Rs. 3,000/- from his agricultural work and by selling milk by keeping buffaloes. The Tribunal did not believe the evidence regarding his income and assessed his income at Rs. 1,500/- per month and, applying multiplier of 15, arrived at the figure of Rs. 34,560/- as the amount of total future loss of income. Learned counsel Mr. Dalal submitted that there were passbooks of a Dairy where the appellant was supplying milk and monthly income could have been assessed on that basis.

(3.) LEARNED counsel Mr. Hemang Shah, appearing with learned counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta, submitted that the award of compensation in both the cases was obviously on higher side and higher multiplier was applied to the figure of income about which there was no material evidence except depositions of the appellants themselves. Learned counsel relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Bijoy Kumar Dugar v Bidyadhar Dutta and others [2006 ACJ 1058] in support of his submission that claim for loss of future income has to be supported by some evidence; whereas in both the cases even current income of the appellant was doubtful and uncertain.