The main legal point established is the assessment of compensation for loss of earning capacity and functional disability in motor accident claims, considering the impact on the claimant's employment.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. By way of this Appeal, the Appellant-claimant has challenged the judgment and award dated 31.12.2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), District Vadodara in M.A.C.P. No. 165 of 2010 on the ground of enhancement of compensation.

2. The facts in brief could be noted which give rise to the present Appeal are that on 18.10.2009, the appellant was traveling as a pillion rider on a Motorcycle bearing Registration No. GJ-6-CA-2495, which was being driven by the respondent No. 1. When they reached Sama Sanjay Nagar, Near Fatehganj, Vadodara, on account of the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1, the Motorcycle skid, the appellant was flung from the motorcycle, as a result of which he sustained serious injuries on the head, face, forehead, both hand, knee, eyes and other parts of the body. The ambulance was called and the appellant was rushed to SSG Hospital for treatment and was admitted as an indoor patient. Due to serious eye injury, one of the eyes of the appellant was totally damaged and therefore, the enucleation and evisceration of one eye of the appellant had to be carried out.

3. Learned Advocate for the appellant-claimant Mr. Mohsin M. Hakim contended that because of the vehicular accident, the claimant sustained injuries on the face, both the hands and other parts of the body and there was a removal of the right eye. There was no possibility of eye transplantation and as the claimant was a driver, after he lost the eye sight, the Regional Transport Office (RTO) has not renewed the license and thus, has raised a contention that 100% functional disability is suffered by the claimant. It is further submitted that though the learned Tribunal has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343, it has failed to appreciate the case of the claimant as of 100% functional disability and therefore, stated that the compensation has not been granted in a just and proper manner.

4. The other side has been served but no appearance has been filed.

5. A contention was raised before the learned Tribunal that the appellant himself was driving the motor cycle and was not a pillion rider. However, the learned Tribunal after having referred to the facts of the matter and the evidence on record to the defence raised, came to the conclusion of the fact established that the appellant was not driving the motor cycle but the accident occurred due to the negligence of the opponent No. 1. Hence, the learned Tribunal concluded that the appellant was a pillion rider at the time of accident.

6. First Appeal No. 1933 of 2020 was raised by Reliance General Insurance Company Limited. The same came to be dismissed, as the only ground raised was the rate of interest where this Court had no reason to interfere with interest rate so granted and the Appeal stood dismissed with no order as to costs and hence, the Civil Application (For Stay) also got dismissed in the same order. Thus, no challenge has been given to the negligence aspect and when nothing contrary has been brought on record, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the learned Tribunal.

7. Having heard learned Advocate for the appellant-claimant, perused the records of the case. The appellant-claimant at the time of accident was aged about 23 years. The learned Tribunal has considered the age of the appellant as 24 years, 2 months and 18 days and hence, the multiplier of 18 becomes applicable. The evidence which was brought on record stated that the appellant was employed as a driver and was drawing a monthly income of Rs.15,000/- the fact was proved by way of evidence of examination-in-chief at Exhibit 31. Further, Chirag Rajkumar Sharma-Director of Connection Union Pvt. Ltd. was examined at Exhibit 43 who was serving