HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1092 / 2004 Gopilal S/o Tejaji Vagriya, aged 40 years, R/o Govliya, Police station Rajnagar, District Rajsamand ----Appellant Versus 1. Shri Kalubhai S/o Masti Khan Musalman Resident of Kau Motipura, Police station Modasa, District Sabar Kata (Gujarat) 2. Sh. Mohammad Salim S/o Gulab Rasool Musalman R/o Ghasiwara, P.s. Modasa, District Sabar Kata (Gujarat) 3. The Oriental Assurance Company Limited Bapu Bazar, Udaipur ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saruparia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Bachhawat _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR Judgment 22/05/2017 The instant civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been preferred by the claimant/appellant for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand (for short 'the Tribunal') vide impugned judgment and award dated 30.04.2003 passed in Claim Case No. 102/2002, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 57,800/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant/appellant. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the claimant filed a claim petition with the averment that on 30.09.2001 while he (2 of 6) [CMA-1092/2004] was waiting at the Bus Stand of Nathdwara for catching a bus for Rajnagar, the respondent no.1 while driving his Truck No. GJ 6/V 6011 rash and negligently hit the claimant resulting in grievous injuries including fracture and 15% disability. As per claim petition, the claimant was 40 years of age earning Rs.3,000/- per month by doing labour work and claimed a sum of Rs. 6,19,000/- as compensation. Learned tribunal issued notices to the non-claimants. Non- claimants No.1 & 2 did not file any reply and proceedings were conducted ex parte. Non-claimant no.3 insurance company filed reply and stated that the accident was caused due to negligence of the claimant as he was crossing the road without noticing the truck. It was further stated that the owner of the vehicle did not inform the insurance company and further the driver was not having valid licence for driving the vehicle and therefore, insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed five issues including relief. The appellant-claimant got examined himself and exhibited documents. No evidence was produced on behalf of the respondents. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties vide its judgment and award dated 30.04.2003 awarded a compensation of Rs. 57,800/- in favour of the claimant/appellant. Hence, this misc. appeal has been filed by the claimant/appellant for enhancement of compensation. (3 of 6) [CMA-1092/2004] Counsel for the appellant submitted that the amount awarded to the claimant in the different heads i.e. physical and mental agony, medical bills etc. is very low and not on the basis of evidence which were produced and proved before the trial court. It is argued that the learned tribunal did not consider the documentary evidence on record and assigned any reason. It is further argued that the learned tribunal did not assign any reason before awarding the compensation to the injury. All injuries are very serious in nature and will require treatment in the future. . Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3/ Insurance Company has opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel for the claimant/appellant and submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. I have considered the submissions on behalf of the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment/award dated 30.04.2003 as also material available on record. Heard learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the record and perused the impugned judgment/award passed by the learned Judge, MACT cases, Rajsamand. In the present case, the only question which is required to be gone into is the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant. While deciding Issue no.3 regarding quantum of compensation is concerned, although the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the injured to be Rs. 1800/- but did not award any compensation under the head of loss of income by (4 of 6) [CMA-1092/2004] applying multiplier. As per claim petition, the claimant is 40 years of age at the time of accident and therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma [Smt.] & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121, multiplier of 15 should have been applied. Hon’ble Apex Court while assessing the multiplier in para 42 of said judgment has held as under :- “We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” Hence the loss of income upon 15% disability, deserves to be recalculated as under:- 270 x 12 x 15 = 48,600/- Thus, while applying the multiplier of 15, the claimant is held to be entitled to a sum of Rs. 48,600/- under the head of loss of income. As per claim petition and documents on record, the claimant suffered fracture of left leg mid part tibia, left foot and crushy injury on left foot and ankle and was operated. The claimant (5 of 6) [CMA-1092/2004] remained hospitalised from 30.09.2001 to 04.10.2001 and thereafter from 24.10.2001 to 25.10.2001. It has been held in the case of R.D. Hattangadi Vs. M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt Ltd & Ors reported in (1995) 1 SCC 551, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity of life, the special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including his age, the unusual deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on his future life. The amount of compensation for non-pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but the award must reflect that different circumstances have been taken into consideration. While assessing the non-pecuniary damages, the damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered and that are likely to be suffered, damages on account of inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration etc have to be addressed. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of 40,000/- for fractures and permnent disability sustained by the claimant and Rs. 5,000/- for pain and suffering already undergone and to be suffered in future, mental and physical shock, hardship, inconvenience and discomforts etc on account of said injuries which deserves to be enhanced. In this view of the matter, the consortium for mental and physical agony, pain and shock, undergone by the claimant is hereby enhanced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. As far as the compensation under the head of medical expenses is concerned, the claimant had produced the medical bills Ex.P/23, 24 and (6 of 6) [CMA-1092/2004] Ex.P/26 & 27, however, the Tribunal has discarded the said evidence of Ex.P/26 & P/27 without any reasoning, therefore, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is liable to be awarded towards the amount incurred towards treatment on the basis of the medical bills produced on record. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and while modifying the judgment and award dated 30.04.2003, claimant is held to be entitled to get (Rs. 48,600/- + 5,000/- + 10,000/-) = Rs. 63,600/- in addition to sum of Rs. 57,800/- already awarded by the learned Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual realisation. (GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) J. bjsh