ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant – original claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 30.04.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Kheda at Nadiad, in MACP No.428 of 2012, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of application till its realisation, only in favour of the claimant, recoverable from opponent Nos.1 to 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the present appeal has been preferred.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

2.1 The accident took place on 22.01.2012 at about 7 a.m. in the morning. At the relevant time, the claimant was serving as a Police Constable and was riding his motorcycle. At that time, respondent No.1, was driving an autorickshaw bearing registration No. GJ-07-VV-8373, in an excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle of the appellant. Due to the accident, the appellant sustained serious fracture injuries on his right leg and other parts of the body. Therefore, the appellant preferred the Claim Petition seeking compensation.

3. The learned Tribunal after considering the submissions and evidence on record, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

4.1 Heard learned advocate Mr. Hiren M. Modi for the appellant. He submitted that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future loss of income on the ground that the income of the present appellant had increased after the accident and, therefore, there was no loss of income. The learned Tribunal, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajkumar v. Ajaykumar, reported in IV (2010) 4 ACC 815 (SC), and considering that the claimant was a Government servant, held that he was not entitled to compensation towards future loss of income or actual loss of income. On this ground, the learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of application till its realisation, and hence, the present appeal has been preferred.

4.2 Further, it is submitted that, at the time of the accident, the claimant was a Government employee and his monthly salary was Rs.14,757/-. The salary certificate issued by the Police Inspector, L.C.B., Kheda at Nadiad, was produced before the learned Tribunal. The examination-in-chief of the claimant was also produced at Exh.23. In his cross-examination, the claimant admitted that, after the accident, there was no deduction in his salary, his increments were not stopped, and he continued to perform the same duties which he was performing before the accident in the Police Department.

4.3 Learned advocate Mr.Modi further submitted that, insofar as the disability is concerned, the disability certificate was produced before the learned Tribunal at Exh.28. Considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, namely, an injury to the right knee and fracture of the upper end of the tibia with avulsion of the posterior cruciate ligament on the right side, as per the opinion of the doctor of Samir Hospital permanent physical impairment in relation to the right lower limb at 28%, which could be considered as 14% disability qua the whole body.

4.4 It was further submitted that the amount awarded towards pain, shock and suffering is on the lower side and requires enhancement. The claimant is also entitled to compensation towards special diet, attendant charges and loss of amenities. Further, actual loss of income for three months is also required to be awarded.

4.5 In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Modi heavily relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Sabeer v. Regional Manage