FA/6294/1998 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 6294 of 1998 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 ========================================================= SADIKHUSAIN MAHAMADMIYA SAIYED - Appellant(s) Versus SUHAS MOHAN SHARMA & 2 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR DHARMESH V SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1, SERVED BY RPAD - (N) for Respondent(s) : 1, NOTICE UNSERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, MS ANUSREE KAPADIA with MS MEGHA JANI for Respondent(s) : 2, DELETED for Defendant(s) : 3, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 15/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act" for short) was pressed only for the purpose of enhancement of compensation under the head of "future loss of FA/6294/1998 2/5 JUDGMENT income". There is no dispute about the facts that the appellant was a minor when his leg came to be crushed in a motor vehicle accident on 23.8.1989 and he had to undergo prolonged treatment, hospitalization and surgical operations. The Claims Tribunal was pleased to award Rs.25,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, Rs.3,200/- for attendant charges, Rs.5,000/- for medicines, medical treatment and nutritious food and Rs.1,000/- towards conveyance charges. The Tribunal has, however, in the impugned award, awarded only Rs.9,072/- towards future loss of income due to disability on the basis that notional income of the appellant was considered at the rate of Rs.350/- per month and, considering the permanent partial disability of 12% of the body as a whole, applying multiplier of 18, total amount of Rs.9,072/- was awarded as future loss of income. 2. Admittedly, the parties had, after reference to the disability certificate showing permanent disability of 25% for right lower limb, submitted a joint pursis, Ex.140, for the purpose of computation of compensation considering the disability to be 12% for the body as a whole. The Tribunal has then referred to income of the father of the applicant who was doing manual agricultural labour work and earning Rs.25/- to FA/6294/1998 3/5 JUDGMENT Rs.30/- per day as labour charges, and taken notional income of the appellant at Rs.350/- per month. It was rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was studying in school at that time and he could not have been presumed to be preparing for agricultural labour work for wages even lower than what his poor father was earning. He also submitted that even bare minimum wages for unskilled labour would have been more than Rs.40/- per day and would have kept on enhancing under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 3. As against that, learned counsel Ms.Anusree Kapadia submitted that the Tribunal had taken into account the overall circumstances of the case and the background of the claim application which was originally filed only for compensation of Rs.9,999/-, which figure was subsequently amended and increased to Rs.80,000/- 4. Having perused the relevant record and heard learned counsel, it is obvious that the Tribunal has, in the impugned award, assessed notional income of the applicant at an extremely low rate even disregarding the prevailing rate of wages for manual labour and completely disregarded the future prospects of higher income FA/6294/1998 4/5 JUDGMENT for the applicant. Although such future loss of income could not have been assessed with any amount of precision, it is necessary that a reasonable basic figure of minimum income is accepted keeping in view the factual background of the case. In the facts of the present case, if the father was earning Rs.30/- per day at the lowest level of unskilled agricultural labour, his son studying in school could safely be presumed to be more equipped for a higher level of job and, with progress in life, he could reasonably be presumed to acquire new skills for earning better wages. In view of these considerations, the figure of yearly loss of income due to disability is required to be revised from Rs.504/- to Rs.1,500/- and, applying multiplier of 18, future loss of income due to permanent partial disability would come to Rs.27,000/-. Deducting therefrom the sum of Rs.9,072/- already awarded by the Tribunal and rounding off the remainder, net additional compensation of Rs.18,000/- is required to be awarded to the appellant. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed with the direction that the appellant shall be entitled to recover additional sum of Rs.18,000/- with proportionate cost and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till FA/6294/1998 5/5 JUDGMENT realization from respondents No.1 and 2, who shall pay the said amount as their joint and several liability. Sd/- ( D.H.Waghela, J.) (KMG Thilake)