FA/522/1992 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 522 of 1992 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Sd/- ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? 1 to 5 NO ========================================================= PARMAR HIRABHAI REVABHAI - Appellant(s) Versus KALAJI JARIJI KHANT & 2 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MR PC MASTER for MR HB SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1, MS LOPA BHATT with MR AD DESAI for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2. MR VC THOMAS with MR PV NANAVATI for Defendant(s) : 3, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 21/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Learned counsel Mr.P.C.Master, appearing for learned counsel Mr.H.B.Shah, pressed the appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the purpose of enhancement of FA/522/1992 2/3 JUDGMENT compensation mainly on the ground that calculation of the amount towards future loss of income was obviously incorrect in the impugned award. There was no dispute about the basic facts that the claimant was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 08.04.1987 and his leg had to be amputated below the knee. He claimed to be working as a mason and earning Rs.50/- per day before the accident. However, the Tribunal assessed his income at Rs.600/- per month and, considering his permanent partial disability to be 38%, applying multiplier of 15, amount of Rs.41,040/- was awarded towards future loss of income. Learned counsel Mr.Master submitted that the appellant was no longer in a position to do the work from which he was earning his livelihood and maintaining his large family. He submitted that, even after prolonged treatment, he could only eke out his living as an immobilized unskilled labourer. He further submitted that assessment of monthly income did not take into consideration the future rise in income. 2. Learned counsel Mr.Thomas, appearing with learned counsel Mr.P.V.Nanavati, and Ms.Lopa Bhatt, learned advocate for respondents No.1 and 2, relied upon the deposition of appellant at Ex.31 and submitted that the appellant had made an exaggerated claim on the basis of supposed FA/522/1992 3/3 JUDGMENT rate of wages which was not substantiated by any independent evidence. 3. Having regard to the undisputed facts, assessment of monthly income and percentage of disability were on the lower side. Even assuming the monthly income of the appellant to be Rs.600/- per month only at the relevant time, the disability was required to be assessed at least at 50% resulting into minimum yearly loss of income to the extent of Rs.3,600/-. Considering the prospect of future rise in income, the yearly loss was required to be assessed at Rs.5,400/- and, applying multiplier of 18 in view of age of 27 years, total sum of Rs.97,200/- was required to be awarded as future loss of income. Deducting therefrom the amount already awarded and rounding off the amount required to be added to the amount of compensation, additional sum of Rs.55,000/- would be due to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed with the direction that the appellant shall be entitled to additional sum of Rs.55,000/- by way of compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of application till the date of payment and proportionate cost. Sd/- ( D.H.Waghela, J.) (KMG Thilake)