JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this Appeal, the Appellant-claimant has challenged the judgment and award dated 21.10.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Panchamahals at Godhra in M.A.C.P. No.716 of 2002 praying for enhancement of compensation amount.

2. The facts which give rise to the present Appeal is that on 02.10.2001 the appellant-claimant was walking by the side of the road. At that time, the respondent No.1 driving a Tempo bearing Registration No.GJ-17-T-8559 in a rash and negligent manner with excessive speed dashed violently the claimant, because of which he suffered grievous injuries on various parts of the body which resulted into permanent disability.

3. Learned Advocate for the appellant Mr. Hiren M. Modi submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider that the disability is permanent in nature and the claimant has disfigurement on the face which the learned Tribunal ought to have considered and should have granted compensation accordingly. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal considering the nature of injuries sustained should have given a just and fair amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering and the amount so granted by the Tribunal towards the said head is on the lower side. It is also submitted that the amount towards transportation, attendant charges and special Diet is not in accordance with the proportion of the period of hospitalization undergone by the claimant.

4. Learned Advocate for the appellant Mr. Hiren M. Modi has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Aminaben Rahimbhai Kadiwala and Others reported in 2001 (2) G.L.R. 1108 to submit that this Court has very categorically considered the provision of Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to in short as ‘the M.V. Act’) and has laid down that on account of the long delay in the Tribunal in bringing the Insurance Company to the claim petition, the Insurance Company cannot deny its liability to pay interest on the amount of damages awarded for a period prior to its impleadment, it is thus, submitted that the Tribunal has erred in denying the interest amount from the date of the Motor Accident Claims Petition.

5. While countering the above arguments, learned Advocate Mr. Hardik P. Mehta submitted that the learned Tribunal has considered 8% disability for the body as a whole and no counter evidence has been given to refute the said assessment. It is further submitted that no evidence has been produced to claim any amount under the head of loss of amenities. It is therefore submitted that the amount granted under various heads by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and therefore, there is no need for this Court to interfere with the judgment and order of the Tribunal. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta further stated that the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with the interest amount prior to its impleadment in the matter.

6. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the records of the case. The learned Tribunal has considered the loss of income by assessing the income of the claimant as Rs.2,250/- per month which according to this Court is just and proper. The disability of 8% considered by the learned Tribunal is also just and proper. Hence, applying the multiplier of 18, the learned Tribunal has rightly granted the amount towards future loss of income @ Rs.38,880/-. Accordingly, actual loss of income assessed @ Rs.4,500/- is also proper. However, this Court considering the disability of the whole body as 8% and the treatment undertaken by the claimant at Alwani Surgical Hospital, Godhra and thereafter, at Urja Orthopedic Hospital, Vadodara where the claimant was treated as an outdoor patient, this Court is of the view that the claimant would have suffered p