IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation for various heads including future loss of income, actual loss of income, pain, shock, and suffering, medical expenses, and attendant charges, based on established legal principles and case law.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. The injured claimant has challenged the judgment dated 11.06.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) Vyara, District Surat in MACP No. 387 of 1991.

2. Mr. Paresh Darji, learned advocate for the appellant referring to the facts of the case submitted that evidence had come on record that the claimant had suffered multiple fracture injuries in both the legs and hands. He was admitted in the hospital and steel rods and plates were inserted in both the legs and hand. Mr. Darji stated that he was operated for about seven times on his leg, but the learned Tribunal has not appropriately granted amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering.

2.1 Advocate Mr. Darji further submitted that the income of the claimant has been considered as Rs. 4,000/- per month, but the prospective rise in income has not been granted in accordance to the judgment of the Apex Court, taking into consideration the age of the claimant. Mr. Darji submitted that the bills regarding medical expenses were placed on record and in total the medical bills produced were to the tune of Rs. 1,22,593/- but the Tribunal has not believed the same considering to be as not proved and granted Rs. 25,000/- under the head of medical treatment and medicines.

2.2 Advocate Mr. Darji stated that production of the document on record couple with the fact that claimant himself had undergone treatment with various Doctors and bills from Viniktam Nursing Home of Dr. Shirish M.Desai were consented to be exhibited by the Insurance Company, and, thus there was no ground to doubt the medical bills produced by the claimant.

3. Advocate Mr. G.C. Mazmudar submitted that the Tribunal has considered the facts on record and has also relied upon the documentary evidence, and in view of the same, the Tribunal has considered the disability of 15% for the body as a whole and accordingly considering the income of Rs. 4,000/- has assessed future loss of income, which is just and proper.

3.1 Advocate Mr. Mazmudar submitted that the amount under head of pain, shock and suffering is also sufficiently granted, and the medical bills which were believed by the Tribunal has been considered in the compensation amount, thus, submitted that no indulgence of this Court is called for.

4. The accident took place between two vehicles being Suzuki Motorcycle No. GJ-5-E-1517 and Truck No. GJ-5-T-1108. Both the vehicles had dashed with each other from the opposite direction. It was the case of the applicant that Truck No. GJ-5-T-1108 had come from opposite direction and on the wrong had dashed with the motorcycle. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation has concluded that the accident had occurred because of the carelessness and negligent driving of opponent no. 1-driver of truck.

4.1 The evidence was proved on record by way of injury certificate dated 23.08.2005 at Exh.56, which was issued by Doctor Shirish M. Deasi, wherein the age of the injured was shown to be as 35 years. The claimant had also produced documents i.e. 7/12 extract at Exh.40 in relation to his agricultural activities and Form No. 8/A extract at Exh.41 and in his affidavit, he has stated that he owned 7 vighas land, which was cultivated jointly with family, and about 10 Vighas land at Devadh; further stated that he was cultivating about 15 acres land at Ganot.

4.2 The claimant has also produced statement of income for the year 1999-2000 from M/s. Jethabhai Dayaram and income from commission as vegetable agent, and income proof from Chalthan Vibhag Khand Udyog Sahkari Mandli Ltd. and certificate from Devedh Group Gram Panchayat, Devedh showing the valuation of the property owned by the family, before the Tribunal. The claimant stated that at the time of accident, they were cultivating sugarcane and were earning income of about Rs. 2.50 lakhs and he was earning Rs. 40,000/- per annum from cultivation as Ganot, and also owners a tractor.

4.3 The Tribunal has considered the income stat