ORAL ORDER

1. The appellant – injured claimant has challenged the judgment dated 27/07/2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anand in MACP No.509 of 2017.

2. The appellant-claimant is working as an ASI in Anti Corruption Bureau.

3. As per the facts of the case, the appellant injured claimant was going towards Vadodara from Napad by driving ECO car bearing registration no.23-AF-5569 and as per his say, he was on moderate speed and on the correct side of the road. When he reached near Sherkhi, Nano Bhag Bus Stand, he faced an accident since opponent no.1 came driving the truck bearing registration no.GJ-16-T-6146 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the ECO car and in the accident he suffered serious injuries on his right leg, right hands, chest and other parts of the body. He was taken to Sterling Hospital, Vadodara for the treatment.

4. The Tribunal on assessment of the evidence on record has attributed 85% negligence of the driver of the truck bearing registration no.GJ-16-T-6146 and 15% negligence is attributed to the claimant as the driver of the ECO car bearing registration no.23-AF-5569.

5. Mr.Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate for the appellant – claimant submitted that since the claimant was in a Government Job, he had not suffered any loss of income as he has been continued in the job. However, he suffered 60% permanent disability which has been considered with the consent of the parties. The doctor has assessed permanent disability of 65% of body as a whole. Mr.Bhalodi, learned advocate submitted that he was treated as an indoor patient from 05/10/2016 to 30/10/2026 and was in ICU till 17/10/2016 and was also admitted in Ashwani Hospital, Vadodara from 11/11/2016 to 13/11/2016. Mr. Bhalodi, learned advocate submitted that though there has been no loss of income but looking to 60% disability for the body as a whole, the amount under the head of loss of amenities of life is assessed very less. Mr. Bhalodi, learned advocate submitted that inspite of fact decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajkumar vs. Ajay Kumar reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343 was referred to, the learned Tribunal has failed to adhere where compensation for the loss of amenities is to be made in the same manner as assessed for loss of future income on account of the functional disability. Mr.Bhalodi, learned advocate has also referred a judgment of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Somabhai Dholabhai Sindhara and others reported in 1993 (2) GLH 714 to state that the Division Bench has adopted the multiplier system and multiplier of five has been adopted in case of a person who has retired from the job, while computing the future economic loss after retirement, the court had observed that there was no loss of income rather after the accident, the injured was twice promoted and also got the benefit of pay revision.

6. Countering the arguments, Ms. Ami Bhatt, learned advocate has stated that the learned Tribunal has already granted an amount of Rs.75,000/- as loss of amenities of life. Ms.Bhatt, learned advocate further submitted that though consent has been given for 60% disability for the body as a whole, the court is required to assess the actual loss to assess the loss to appropriately compensate for the amenities of life, which here in this case would not be more as the claimant has received injury on his limbs and further stated that the amount under the head of actual loss of income has been erroneously assessed as no evidence has been produced to show that he had suffered any loss of income and that 147 days of commuted leave had actually resulted into loss of salary, has not been proved and thus, Ms.Ami Bhatt, learned advocate submitted that the said amount is erroneously granted.

7. Case of Somabhai (supra) is with respect to fact that the injured had not actually suffered any economic loss and rather he was promoted twice with a benefit of pay revision.

The Division Bench in light of the facts of the case and t