The court established that the assessment of compensation must reflect the claimant's actual earning capacity and the impact of permanent disability on future earnings, applying the correct multiplier as per established case law.

JUDGMENT :

(J.C. Doshi, J.)

1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant – original claimant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 13.02.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gondal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.65 of 1999.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 The brief fact of the present appeal is such that on 30.12.1998, the claimant was travelling in Rickshaw No.GJ-3X- 346 with his goods and going from Atkot to Mota Davda which was driven by opponent No.1 in rash and negligent manner. The driver of Rickshaw lost control over the vehicle and resultantly the vehicle turned turtle. The claimant sustained severe injuries out of the road accident.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.D.R.Bhatt appearing for the appellant – claimant and learned advocate Mr.Nagesh Sood appearing for the Insurance Company.

4. In an appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation, learned advocate Mr.Bhatt would submit that the learned Tribunal despite believed that the claimant was mechanic and having garage to repair the vehicles, believed income of the claimant to Rs.2,400/- per month on the ground that the claimant has not produced any documentary evidence to suggest and prove his income. He would submit that the income part taken up by the learned Tribunal is on lower tier. He would submit that the claimant was just 22 years old at the time of road accident. He was running auto garage and according to pleading, the claimant was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. He would submit that looking to the facts and circumstances, learned Tribunal ought to have believed that the claimant was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and to calculate the compensation taking up that figure as income. He would further submit that the claimant suffered paraplegic injuries. He has become totally dysfunctional below waist and he has become 100% functionless, yet learned Tribunal believed functional disability of 75% of body as a whole. He pointed out that this is the second error committed by the learned Tribunal. Thirdly, he would submit that learned Tribunal considering the age of the claimant at 22 years, in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma versus Delhi Transport Corporation - (2009) 6 SCC 121, was required to take the multiplier of 18 instead of 17. He would further submit that learned Tribunal has also granted lesser amount under conventional head namely compensation for pain, shock and suffering. Even learned Tribunal has not assessed and granted compensation under the head of loss of marriage prospects as well as loss of life amenities. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal was grossly unjustified in not granting the compensation with regard to loss of future prospects as well. In view of above submissions, he submits to allow this appeal and to enhance amount of compensation.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Nagesh Sood appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that the learned Tribunal has taken up monthly income of the claimant to Rs.2,400/- which is on higher side than the rate of minimum wage available at the time of road accident. Therefore the calculation of the claimant’s income was already on higher side and it need not be disturbed in this appeal. Therefore, he submits to dismiss this appeal.

6. Regard being had to the rival submissions of learned advocates for both sides, it is apt to note that the issue of road accident, involvement of the offending vehicle in the road accident, paraplegic injuries sustained by the claimant as a result of the road accident and he became functionless below waist on account of receiving the injuries are not in dispute. Since the Insurance Company has not challenged the impugned judgment and award fastening liability of the Insurance Company is also not in dispute.

7. In background of above, if we assess the fact situation available from the evidence on record to