The assessment of compensation for loss of amenities of life and future loss of income should consider the impact of permanent disability on the claimant's earning capacity, and the multiplier system can be applied to determine appropriate compensation.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. The challenge is to the judgment dated 1.9.2018 passed by the MACT, Junagadh in MACP No. 400/05.

2. Facts of the case suggest that on 15.3.2005, the injured at about 2.30 p.m. was proceeding from Rajkot to Ahmedabad in accent car bearing registration no. GJ-5 CF-7987 which was driven by opponent no. 3. When they reached Kuvadva Road near J.K. Hotel, a utility car bearing registration no. GJ-13 U-8507 driven by opponent no. 1 came in a rash and negligent manner and on turning, the accident occurred. The learned Tribunal has considered equal negligence of both the vehicles and had ordered to recover the amount from opponents no. 1 to 5.

3. Mr. Modi submitted that the learned Tribunal was required to consider the physical disability in the form of permanent nature to grant appropriate amount under the head of loss of amenities of life when no amount has been granted for future loss of income. Mr. Modi further submitted that medical expenses as could be proved is to the amount of Rs. 1,85,000/-. Mr. Modi submitted that at the time of the accident, the claimant was 45 and was serving as an Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department at Porbandar and the accident had occurred on 15.3.2005 and the salary slip of June, 2005 produced at Exh.39 shows his monthly income of Rs. 16,000/-. Advocate Mr. Modi submitted that there was compounding fracture in his leg which has led to permanent disability and because of the inability, he took voluntary retirement which came into effect on 30.6.2005. Advocate Mr. Modi submitted that because of VRS, the loss of income was required to be considered which the learned Tribunal has failed to do so. Advocate Mr. Modi further submitted that in view of I.T. returns of his continuation of the working in other field was considered, then the learned Tribunal was required to grant the amount under the head of loss of amenities of life to appropriately compensate him for the permanent loss which he has suffered and further submitted that he had undergone the treatment and the medical bills would reflect the suffering and the pain which he would have sustained during the term of his treatment where actually, the Doctor has certified 48% permanent disability and the learned Tribunal has considered the same as 24% functional disability.

4. Countering the arguments, Advocate Mr. Chirayu Mehta submitted that the claimant was not forced to retire from his job while he had voluntarily taken the decision to retire and the evidence on record by way of I.T. returns shows that his income has increased continuously and rather he has been earning more than what he was receiving as a salaried person. The learned Tribunal has considered the income tax returns produced at Exhs.59 to 68 which shows his income from private work of Rs. 23,22,439/-.

5. The learned Tribunal has not granted any amount under the head of any future loss of income but has randomly awarded Rs. 50,000/- under the head of loss to the physical loss caused to the claimant. In Dahyabhai Somchand Parmar vs. Ramavtar B. Sharma, 2006 (4) GLR 2844, wherein the calculation of the trial Court adopting the multiplier of 5 applied in case of injury sustained by government or semi-government employee whose employment has continued in the same cadre for compensation and whose earning has increased was approved.

6. It is also required to be mentioned that such method of applying the multiplier system in case of assessing the loss of amenities of life, has been approved by the Apex Court, which has the reflection in Paras 11 and 13 of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, which refers as under:

“11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantifi