FA/2212/1993 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 2212 of 1993 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Appellant(s) Versus AJAYBHAI JAYANTILAL SHAH & 4 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HEMANT S SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1, None for Defendant(s) : 1,3 - 4. NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 2, MS SONAL D VYAS for Defendant(s) : 5, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 18/01/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 31.03.1993 passed by learned Motor accident Claims Tribunal (Main), FA/2212/1993 2/5 JUDGMENT Ahmedabad ( Rural) at Mirzapur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No 601 of 1984 wherein the Tribunal has awarded a sum of 50, 000/- as compensation to the claimant . 2.0 The accident has occurred on 09.02.1984 at 12.40 p.m on the National Highway No. 8 near village Jetelpur. The vehicles involved in the accident were the S.T. Bus driven by opponent No.1 and truck No. GRR 8444 driven by opponent No. 3 and insured with United India Insurance Company. The claimant Ajaybhai Jayantilal Shah was travelling in the S.T. Bus as passenger who received injuries in the accident. He therefore, filed the aforesaid claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 50,000/-wherein the Tribunal has passed the aforesaid award which is challenged in the present appeal. 3.0 Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs. 10,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering for a simple fracture of slyloid process; that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs. 3000/- towards medical and other expenses without any documentary evidence on record and that the Tribunal has erred in awarding future loss of income considering the income which will be receivable to the injured. 4.0 Learned advocate appearing for the respondent supported the judgement and award of the learned Tribunal and submitted that the FA/2212/1993 3/5 JUDGMENT appeal may be dismissed. 5.0 Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6.0 As regards income of the claimant is concerned, the learned Tribunal in absence of any corroborative evidence, has assessed the income of Rs. 1200/- per month. The claimant was businessman and he did not work for six months. Looking to the papers produced, the claimant must have done work for three months. Hence, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3600/- for three months which is just and proper. 7.0 So far as future loss of income is concerned, the claimant deposed that he was earning Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3000/- per month. He has produced at Exh. 254 the order of income tax which was filed after the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal has assessed income of Rs. 1500/- per month. The claimant was businessman and he did not work for six months and he must have done work for three months. Therefore, the claimant shall be entitled to loss of income for three months in view of the injuries received by him is Rs. 4500/- for three months. For calculating the future loss of income, the income of Rs. 2000/- per month was considered with the disability of the body at 13% and therefore the loss would come to Rs. 260/- per month i.e. Rs. 3120/- per years. The Tribunal has applied multiplier of 17 years. Looking to the FA/2212/1993 4/5 JUDGMENT age of the injured of 38 years, 15 multiplier would be just and proper in view of decision of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi State Road Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. By applying multiplier of 15 years, the amount would come to Rs. 46,800/- under the head of future loss of income. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 53, 940/- for future loss of income. Therefore, an excess amount of Rs. 6240/- was awarded. 8.0 For pain, shock and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- . I am of the view that the said sum of Rs. 10,000/- is just and proper. 9.0 For expenses Rs. 3000/- is awarded and Rs.4500/- for loss of income of three month which are also just and proper. 10.0 Thus, in view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that an amount of Rs.6240/- shall be reduced from the future loss of income awarded to the claimant. The excess amount to be paid to the Corporation. Rest of the award remains unaltered and confirmed. No costs. (K.S. JHAVERI, J.) FA/2212/1993 5/5 JUDGMENT niru*