Point of Law: Motor Vehicles Act only provides for award of interest and not its rate.

sJUDGMENT :

(Satyen Vaidya, J.)

1. Both these appeals are being decided by a common judgment as these arise from same Award dated 20.4.2014, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, H.P. in MACC No. 1-S/2 of 2012 and also involve identical questions of law and facts.

2. FAO No. 414 of 2014 has been filed by the claimant for enhancing of Award amount, whereas FAO No. 420 of 2014 has been filed by insurer, assailing the quantum of compensation to be on higher side.

3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of these appeals are that claimant Pushpinder Singh alias Monu on 30.6.2006, while riding motorcycle was hit by a Car bearing Registration No. CH-03Y-7187, and suffered grievous injuries resulting in 50% disability. The offending car was owned by respondent No.1 (for short, ‘the owner’) and driven by respondent No.2 (for short, ‘the driver’) in FAO No. 414 of 2014.

4. Claimant preferred claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short, ‘the Act’) before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) with the allegation that claimant had suffered grievous injuries and consequent disability due to rash and negligent driving by the driver. It was alleged that claimant at the time of accident was working at a salary of Rs. 9000/- per month as sales executive with “Smooth Waves” and was also being paid Rs. 1200/- per month as incentive. It was further alleged that due to the disability suffered by the claimant, he was not in a position to work anymore.

5. Learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition of claimant and awarded a sum of Rs. 19,86,016/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the awarded amount. Insurer was burdened with liability to pay the compensation. Learned Tribunal awarded the compensation to claimant under various heads as under: -

“Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)”

6. The claimant has assailed the aforesaid award on the grounds that the same is on lesser side, whereas, insurer has assailed the same being excessive.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

8. Learned Tribunal assessed the income of claimant at Rs. 9000/- per month. Considering the 50% disability of claimant, loss of income was assessed at Rs. 4500/- per month. Learned Tribunal added Rs. 500/- per month on account of future prospects and thus assessing loss of income at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month and by applying a multiplier of 17, a sum of Rs. 10,20,000/- was awarded to the claimant as loss of future earnings.

9. It has been contended on behalf of the insurer that the assessment of income of claimant at the rate of Rs. 9000/- per month by learned Tribunal is without any legal basis. It is submitted that there was no cogent and reliable evidence to prove the income of claimant on such a higher side. Challenge has been made to document Ext. PW-5/A, the salary certificate of claimant, on the ground that it was not proved in accor