JUDGMENT :

SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.

1. The captioned appeal is directed against the common judgment dated 27.04.2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the common judgment") passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition nos. 896 of 2003 and 1464 of 2003 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") whereby both the claim petitions are partly allowed by the Tribunal. In Motor Accident Claim Petition no. 896 of 2003, the Tribunal allowed the claim of Rs.18,32,660/- in favour of the claimants of the pillion rider. While the captioned appeal concerns Motor Accident Claim Petition no. 1464 of 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the claim petition”) where, the Tribunal, has allowed the compensation of Rs.10,44,212/- together with proportionate cost and interest. The respondents are held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the captioned appeal seeking enhancement on various grounds.

2. Mr.Adnan Khan, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. MTM Hakim, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that on 18.01.2003, after discharging their duties, the appellant and the pillion rider, left Vadodara for Dakor. The appellant was driving the motor cycle while the deceased was pillion seated and when they were moving towards Dakor, the tanker bearing registration no. G.T.B. No. 5661 (hereinafter referred to as "the vehicle in question"), driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor vehicle from rear side. As a result, the appellant sustained serious injuries while the pillion rider sustained fatal injuries. It is further submitted that so far as the appellant is concerned, initially the claim lodged was for Rs.25,00,000/-; however, during the pendency of the claim petition, considering the severity of the injuries, it was enhanced to Rs.45,00,000/-.

2.1 It is next submitted that owing to the accident, the appellant was admitted to the Bhailal Amin General Hospital and remained as an indoor patient for almost one month i.e. from 18.01.2003 to 14.02.2003. The injuries sustained were fracture spinal cord, compression Fr. D-11-12 with paraplegia with bladder/bowel involvement. It is further submitted that as per the certificate of the doctor, the appellant had sustained 80% lifelong disability, resulting into 100% functional disability. It is further submitted that the appellant at the time of the accident was aged about 50 years and considering the nature of the injuries, he opted for voluntary retirement. Thus, the Tribunal erred in adopting the multiplier of 5 as against the applicable multiplier of 13.

2.2 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Preetha Krishnan & Ors vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors reported in 2025(0) AIJEL-SC 76083 wherein reference is made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Hari Om Construction vs. National Insurance Company Limited reported in 2022 (0) AIJEL-SC 71033.

2.3 It is next submitted that the Tribunal in view of the injuries sustained ought to have considered 30% prospective future rise in income under the head of future loss of income. The appellant was rendered totally bedridden and was compelled to opt for voluntary retirement. It is submitted that Vijay Bhupatray Vyas working as in-charge in the settlement cell of the Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the IPCL") has indicated that had the appellant completed his remaining service, he would have at the time of retirement in the year 2012, received total salary of Rs.42,27,818/- coupled with gratuity of Rs.3,50,000/-. Therefore, the Tribunal considering the age of the appellant and he being salaried person with government job, ought to have awarded 30% prospective rise in income.

2.4 It is further submitted that the Tribunal, was wrong in