The court emphasized the need to assess compensation based on the actual income and disability of the claimant, as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

1. This First Appeal is preferred by the appellant against the impugned judgment and award dated 31.08.2020 passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.15 of 2016 by the 3rd MACT, Limbdi district Surendranagar, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.5,50,380/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.

2. The Brief facts leading to the case are as follows:

2.1 On 03.12.2015 at about 7:45 p.m. in the evening, the appellant herein was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle being driven by respondent No.4 herein. The accident occurred due to a car which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and which rammed into the said motorcycle from behind due to which the appellant received serious injuries.

2.2 The appellant suffered fracture of skull, sever bleeding, fracture in right leg and in the right feet. After getting medical treatment and undergoing operations, the appellant suffered permanent disability.

2.3 Aggrieved the appellant preferred MACP No.15 of 2016 praying for a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The learned Tribunal issue summons. The parties appeared and led evidence in support of their case. After assessing the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal was pleased to award a compensation of Rs.5,50,380/- with interest @ 9% per annum. 2.4 Aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.

3. Ms. Amrita Ajmera, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- per month. She submits that the appellant was a tailor by profession and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, and therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have assessed a reasonable amount towards monthly income. In any case, the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the income at Rs.3,000/- per month, which is even less than the minimum wages as prescribed for a skilled worker since the appellant was a tailor by profession.

4. She further submits that it is also brought on record that after the accident, the appellant is left with disability of 88.5%. 33.5% towards the disability in the hand and leg and 55% disability towards neurological injuries as per the disability certificates produced by the appellant before the learned Tribunal. She submits that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the disability in total instead of assessing the same at 47% as accepted by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company in the Tribunal.

5. She further submits that even on the other counts like pain, shock, suffering attendance, Special diet, transportation, etc, the amounts awarded to the appellant is abysmally low and ought to be enhanced. She submits that the income of the appellant should be held at least as that of skilled worker prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act in absence of any cogent evidence.

6. Per contra, Ms. Kirti Pathak, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.5 -Insurance Company submits that the compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper. She submits that in absence of any evidence brought on record with respect to monthly income being earned by the appellant, the amount of monthly income as assessed at Rs.3,000/- for the tailoring job is just and proper. She submits that even on the other heads, it has come on record that the appellant has undergone treatment as indoor patient for 18 days, and therefore, the compensation as awarded under the various heads are also just and proper and that the impugned judgment and award need not be interfered with and the First Appeal be dismissed.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record as well as the Record & Proceedings of the case.

8. In the present case, it is not disputed that the appellant was a tailor by profession and earning his income by doi