The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to apply the multiplier method for determining compensation in injury cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing the need for consistency and uniformity in compensation awards.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant/original claimant impugns the judgment and award dated 07/10/2003, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar [for short ‘the Tribunal’], in Motor Accident Claim Petition (MACP) No.931/1997 in this appeal, filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short].

2. The claimant had approached the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act raising the claim for compensation of Rs.300000/-. The claimant contends that, on 21/05/1997, while he was travelling in jeep bearing registration No. MH16/E-653 from Karmala to Chapadgaon, a truck bearing registration No.DLIG/A-7010 owned by respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no.2 dashed to the jeep. On account of the said accident, the claimant suffered grievous injuries resulting into permanent disablement. According to the claimant, he was hospitalized in Sancheti Hospital at Pune during the period from 22/05/1997 to 28/06/1997. He was treated for multiple fractures and undergone three surgeries of right hand. An iron rod has been inserted to support bones during such surgery.

3. The claimant suffered permanent disablement. According to the claimant, he was aged about 38 years and engaged in teaching musical instruments. He had almost 30 students, contributing towards his income to the tune of Rs.3000/- per month. According to the claimant, he lost the working capacity and now depends on others for his daily pursuits. The claim petition was contested by the respondent. i.e. insurer of the truck by filing a written statement [Exhibit-25]. The claimant relied upon his own evidence and evidence of Dr. Pradeep Ingale [Exhibit-45] to prove the permanent disablement. By evidence of Kisan Bhujbal, he seeks to prove his profession as music teacher and loss of earning. The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions, passed an award of Rs.83,500/- inclusive of NFL amount in favour of the claimant. The claimant aggrieved assessment of compensation approached this Court.

4. Mr. Suryawanshi, learned Advocate holding for Mr. Palod, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant/original claimant vehemently submits that, the assessment of compensation made under the impugned award is grossly inadequate. He would submit that, though the claimant has suffered permanent disablement and loss of future earning, the Tribunal granted meager amount as lump sum compensation. He would submit that; the multiplier method is regarded as best method for assessment of compensation even for injury cases. The Tribunal has not assigned reasons for departing recognized method of assessment. He would further submit that, Tribunal awarded paltry sum towards non-pecuniary heads. Hence, he seeks enhancement of compensation.

5. Mr. Kulkarni, Learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.2/Insurer vehemently opposes the contentions of appellant. He would submit that, the claimant failed to establish his profession as well as loss of earning consequent upon the injury suffered in the accident. He would submit that, in absence of evidence regarding loss of earning, the Tribunal is justified in awarding lump sum compensation. He would point out that, the accident occurred in the year 1997. The Tribunal has assessed loss keeping in mind price index of relevant period of accident and granted just and proper compensation. Hence, he urge for dismissal of appeal.

6. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for both the sides and after perusal of the record, it can be gathered that, there is no dispute about the accident and injury suffered by the claimant. The dispute as regards to the assessment of compensation is posed in this appeal. Perusal of findings recorded by the Tribunal on the point of income of the claimant and assessment of compensation would show that, although the Tribunal has accepted tha