Point of law : As the age of the appellant was 19 years on the date of the accident and as he was self-employed person, the appellant would be entitled to prospective income to the tune of 40%. As the extent of disability is agreed between the parties before the Tribunal at 52% permanent disability of the body as a whole, the same does not require any alteration.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 11.10.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Gandhidham at Kutch in MACP no.191 of 2011, the appellant-original claimant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2. Following facts emerge from the record of the appeal:-

That the accident took place on 26.2.2011. It is the case of the appellant-original claimant that on the date of the accident, he was sitting as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration no. GJ-12 BE-2858 which was being driven by his brother. It is the case of the appellant that when the motorcycle reached Bhimani Way Bridge, situated at Galpadar Highway Road, a car bearing registration no. GJ-12 AK-0872 being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed with the motorcycle because of which the claimant fell down. It is the case of the appellant that because of the impact of the accident, the appellant sustained serious injuries, which has resulted into permanent disability to the tune of 52%. Record indicates that FIR came to be lodged with the jurisdictional Police Station. The appellant-original claimant filed the present claim petition under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs.24,00,000/-. It was the case of the appellant that the accident occurred because of the sole negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. the Car. It was the case of the appellant that he was 19 years old and was doing fabrication work and thereby, earning Rs.9,000/- per month. The appellant was examined at Exh.21. The appellant also relied upon the documentary evidences, such as, copy of FIR at Exh.4/1, copy of panchnama of the place of accident at Exh.4/2, copy of MLC at Exh.4/3, copy of R.C.Book of car no. GJ-12 AK-0872 at Exh.4/4, copy of insurance policy of car no. GJ-12 AK-0872 at Exh.4/5, copy of driving license of Sajit Multani at Exh.4/6, copy of driving license of Bharat original opponent no.1-Kantilal Sauni at Exh.4/7, copy of R.C. Book of motorcycle no. GJ-12 BE-2858 at Exh.4/8, copy of insurance policy of motorcycle no. GJ-12 BE-2858 at Exh.4/9, disability certificate at Exh.22, medical bills at Exh.24 to 27 and closing pursis at Exh.29.

3. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the appellant has not adduced any evidence to prove his income and by a guesswork, determined the income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- per month. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, considering the age of the appellant to be 19 years on the date of the accident, the Tribunal applied multiplier of 18. It is a matter of record that the appellant by a purshis agreed that the permanent disability of the body as a whole is to the extent of 52%, relying upon the disability certificate at Exh.22. Considering the said piece of evidence, the Tribunal assessed the compensation under the head of loss of future income at Rs.3,36,960/-. The Tribunal considered the documentary evidence Exh.24 to 27 and awarded a sum of Rs.1,34,740/- towards medical expenses. Over and above the same, the Tribunal considered the actual loss of income for one month and awarded Rs.3,000/- as compensation under the head of actual loss of income, Rs.7,500/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering and Rs.5,000/- as compensation under the head of special diet, transportation and attendant charges and thus, awarded total compensation of Rs.4,87,200/- along with 7% interest per annum with proportionate costs and interest. The Tribunal was pleased to partly allow the claim petition and awarded Rs.4,87,200/- with proportionate cost and interest at the rate of 7% per annum. Being aggrieved by