- (1.) PRESENT appeal arises out of the judgment and award rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Valsad Camp in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.528 of 1989 dated 21/01/2002, which has been preferred by the original claimant in the said petition claiming Rs.4,00,000.00 as compensation for the injuries suffered by him in a vehicular accident to vehicle jeep car No.GUY 778 on 15/06/1989 at National Highway No.8, near Village Sarothi. 1.1 The claimant was travelling in the jeep car which was driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. According to the claimant, jeep was driven by respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner and therefore the accident occurred whereby the jeep car dashed with the tree resulting into several injures to the claimant. The age of the claimant at the time of accident was 48 years. According to him he was earning Rs.10,000.00 per month out of automobile business. He suffered three fractures, was required to be hospitalized and thereafter also immobilized and, therefore, he claimed compensation for Rs.4 Lacs.
(2.) THE claim was opposed to by the opponents not disputing the fact that respondent No.1 was driver, No.2 was owner and No.3 was the insurer of the vehicle. After considering rival side submissions the learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that accident was outcome of negligence on the part of respondent No.1. The Tribunal also found that the income of the claimant was Rs.2,500.00 per month and not Rs.10,000.00 as was claimed. For this purpose, the Tribunal relied upon the income tax return filed by the claimant. The Tribunal assessed the permanent partial disability at 8% as certified by the Doctor and ultimately awarded compensation totalling to Rs.88,700.00, and hence this appeal.
(3.) HEARD learned Advocate Ms.J S Kadiya appearing for Mr.Qureshi for the appellant and learned Advocate Mr.Mirza appearing for respondent No.3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 though served with notice, have chosen not to contest this appeal. 4.1 Ms.Kadiya submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the compensation. She submitted that the income is underassessed, so also, the amount of compensation under other heads and therefore, this appeal may be appropriately allowed. 4.2 Ms.Kadiya submitted that the prospective rise in income is not taken into consideration by the Tribunal and, therefore, compensation under the head of future loss of income is erroneously calculated. The Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.20,000.00 towards compensation under pain, shock and suffering which is not adequate. Likewise, compensation under the head of medical expenditure is also not adequate and, therefore, the enhanced amount may be awarded by allowing the appeal. ;