- (1.)THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 12.08.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Ahmedbad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 129 of 1992 wherein the claim petition preferred by the claimants was partly allowed by awarding compensation in the sum of Rs. 32, 600/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization.
(2.)ON 26.04.1991 the claimant was going on a cycle to stitch clothes at the residence of one of his customers and when he reached near the Sahajanand Cross Road, a Motorcycle No. GJ-1-J-5620 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the claimant. As a result thereof, the claimant fell down and sustained severe injuries. He therefore, filed the aforesaid claim petition before the learned Tribunal wherein the aforesaid award came to be passed. This appeal is at the instance of the claimant for enhancement of compensation.
Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error in considering the monthly income of only Rs. 1000/-. He submitted that the claimant in his deposition has stated that he was earning Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 2500/- per month and after the accident he is not able to do tailoring work as he is not able to sit and not able to do the tailoring work. He submitted that the learned Tribunal should have considered the monthly income of Rs.2000/-. Considering the 20% disability, Rs. 400/- is required to be considered as monthly loss and therefore, the loss of Rs. 4800/- per year.

Learned advocate for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal has committed error in applying multiplier of 7 years. He submitted that the age of the claimant was 51 years at the time of accident. Therefore, multiplier of 11 years should have been applied by the learned Tribunal in view of the decision in case of Sarla Varma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2009(6) SCC, 121. By applying multiplier of 11 years, the future economic loss would come to Rs. 52800/-( Rs. 4800/-/- x11).

(3.)LEARNED advocate for the appellant further contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding only Rs. 7500/- towards pain, shock and suffering. Rs. 15000/- should have been awarded looking to the disability and looking to the fact that he is not in a position to sit. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in case of Babu Mansa versus Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and others reported in 1978 (18) G.L.R page 492. He further contended that learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the transportation charges inspite of the fact that the claimant was hospitalized for 23 days and he had to visit 6 times in the hospital and Rs.30/- per day was spent for transportation. Therefore, Rs. 900/- should have been awarded under the head of transportation charges. He further contended that Rs. 5000/- should have been awarded for future operation. He submitted that the claimants are entitled to additional amount of Rs. 49, 400/- under the head of future economic loss. He further submitted that no amount was awarded for the medical bills and attendance charges.
Learned advocate for the respondent supported the judgement and award of the learned Tribunal. He submitted that in absence of any documentary evidence regarding the income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of Rs. 1000/- per month. He further submitted that the amount awarded under the head of pain, shock and suffering is just and proper in view of the evidence of Dr. Vakaria at Exh. 86 who has not treated the claimant. He further contended that there is no medical evidence on record to show that the future operation is required. He submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and the appeal may be dismissed.