JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. The present appeal is filed by the original claimant challenging the impugned judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katchch at Bhuj dated 25.04.2006 in MACP No. 329 of 1995, whereby the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,09,300/- to the injured.

2. The brief facts of the present case are as under:

2.1 On 14.12.1994 an accident was occurred. The appellant-original claimants were returning from Vadodara to Bhuj in Luxury Bus bearing registration No. GJ-2-T-2642. The opponent No. 2, who was in the employment of opponent No. 4, was driving the said bus, when the said bus reached near Surajbari check Post on National Highway. At that time, a truck bearing registration No. GJ-12-T-6972. Late Shri Vasam Vishram was driving the said truck in course of his employment with opponent No. 1. Both the drivers were driving their vehicles rashly, reckless, negligently and at an excessive speed. They were driving their vehicles without observing the rules of the road. At that time, a truck dashed and collided with Luxury bus. The applicant sustained injuries and consequent permanent disablement due to the said injuries.

3. Learned advocate for the appellant- original claimant has submitted that the amount which is awarded by the Tribunal is not just and proper. It is submitted that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the facts of the present case and not applied the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court. It is further contended that the Tribunal has not considered the disablement of the appellant in its true and prospective spirit and while calculating the quantum, the Tribunal has committed a grave error.

It is also contended that the Tribunal has committed an error by not applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Sadiq and Others vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2014) 2 SCC 735 and Parminder Singh vs. New India Insurance Company, AIR 2019 SC 3128.

4. As against that, learned advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company has raised objection that the present appellant was working as a labourer at a Tea stall and therefore considering the disablement, there is no future loss of income and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and no interference is required to be called for. Learned advocate for the respondent further contended that the amount awarded to the appellant is in consonance with the facts of the present case and considering the disability, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and no enhancement is required to be made. It is submitted that the present appeal requires to be dismissed.

5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material on record, this Court finds that the present appeal requires to be interfered and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal requires to be modified and substituted in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Syed Sadiq and Parminder Singh (supra). The calculation of which are as under: