ORDER
J.G. Chitre, J.
1. The appellant is hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the award which has been passed by IInd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) Neemuch in the matter of Claim Case No. 54 of 1992 so far as quantum of compensation which has been awarded to him is concerned.
2. Few facts need to be stated for unfolding the matter. The appellant, the victim was driving a moped on 16-7-1992 at about 10.30 p.m. when he was going from Harsola to Neemuch. When he was near village Jamuniya, a truck which was being driven by respondent No. 2 dashed against him resulting in a motor accident. The said truck was belonging to respondent No. 1 and was insured with respondent No. 3 at the relevant time. The appellant was having two pillion riders on the said moped at the time of said accident. Those two persons expired in the said accident and appellant survived but he sustained injury to his leg by which he became crippled and now he is required to take the help of crutches for walking. These are undisputed facts.
3. The appellant happens to be a person serving in Army. On account of said accidental injuries he has been removed from field duty and has been entrusted with table work. The appellant claimed compensation on account of those accidental injuries resulting in permanent disablement to him as well as loss of income and pain and suffering. He also claimed the amount spent by him on medical treatment for which he was required to visit Udaipur also.
4. Respondent No. 3, New India Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as insurance company for convenience) resisted the claim by raising various points. The main contention was that the compensation claimed by the present appellant was excessive.
5. The Tribunal held that the said accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 1 who was in the employment of respondent No. 2. The Tribunal held that the appellant sustained 50% permanent disablement on account of the said accident. The Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- in all on the counts as mentioned above and that has been challenged by this appeal with a prayer to enhance the compensation amount.
6. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 remained absent, though served, at the time of final hearing of this appeal. Counsel for appellant Shri Samvatsar and counsel for respondent No. 3 Shri Swami were heard in context with the evidence on record.
7. Shri Samvatsar submitted that the learned Tribunal committed the error in granting compensation to the appellant at a lower side though it considered the expenditure incurred by him for the medical treatment which included his visit to Udaipur for it. He argued that the amount of compensation which has been awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- is very much low. Shri Samvatsar further argued that the compensation which has been awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant on account of pain and sufferings is also at lower side. He argued further that the learned Tribunal did not consider the fact properly that by the said permanent disability the appellant has been deprived of the possibility of getting promotion by involving him in field duty. Lastly he argued that the Tribunal did not apply the system of multiplier for assessing loss of income on account of said accidental injuries.
8. Shri S. S. Swami, countering the arguments advanced by the appellant, submitted that compensation which has been calculated by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. He submitted that on account of permanent disability which has been sustained by the appellant the chances of getting promotion have not been totally disappeared. He justified the conclusions drawn by the Tribunal and the award passed by it.
9. The evidence on record proves that the appellant sustained such accidental injuries which made him partial crippled and made him to take the help of crutches for walking. The evidence also proves that for the purpose of taking medical treatment he was required to visit Udaipur. The Tribunal has granted compensation keeping in view the voucher’s produced by the appellant. It is a matter of experience that when a person is involved in such accident, the victim or his near relatives do not find calmness of the mind to preserve all the receipts and vouchers. In many places such vouchers are also not given. In the haste of medical treatment on many occasions the near relatives or the attendants of the victim forget to get the vouchers though they spend money for medical treatment. The vouchers are not demanded and given in respect of nutritious diet and fruits which are generally given to such victim when he happens to be indoor patient at the time of taking medical treatment. The Tribunal has to take a reasonable view about it by keeping itself informed of the normal human behaviour and experience. Such things are not to be calculated solely on the basis of vouchers. By keeping a rational approach of the matter, I conclude that the appellant is entitled to receive compensation on those counts to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-.
10. The appellant has sustained permanent disablement on account of injuries to his left leg to the extent of 46%. The evidence on record shows that he sustained some physical infirmity in respect of urinal bladder. These injuries are bound to cause permanent disablement and pain and sufferings to him in future. The appellant though has been deprived of serving the nation by remaining in battle field, has not lost the chances of promotion permanently. He can get the promotions while doing the table work also. But a reasonable approach has to be taken in this context. I find force in the submission of Shri Samvatsar in respect of non-application of multiplier. The multiplier system enables the Tribunal to have reasonable basis for calculating the compensation awardable to such victim. It has to keep connection with the likelihood of earning the income connected with the security in respect of compensation amount. The appellant was 25 years old when the said accident took place. Therefore, in my view multiplier of 14 would be just and proper in this case for assessing loss of income.
11. The evidence on record shows that at the time of said accident the salary of the appellant was Rs. 2,000/- per month. Appellant was a young person and unmarried. Being it so, he must have been saddled with the responsibility of maintaining his parents. He must have been spending some amount for his own needs. Therefore, taking a rational view of the situation I come to the conclusion that loss of income in this case qua the appellant would be Rs. 1,000/- per month. If that is multiplied by 12, it comes to Rs. 12,000/- per year. If a multiplier of 14 is applied to it, it will come to Rs. 1,68,000/-. The disablement has been calculated at 50%. Therefore, this amount needs to be divided by 2. It comes to Rs. 84,000/-. At the time of said accident the appellant was carrying two pillion riders on his moped. That has to be given due weightage. Therefore, Rs. 14,000/- will have to be deducted from Rs. 84,000. The appellant would be entitled to compensation on account of loss of income to the tune of Rs. 70,000/-. Rs. 70,000/- plus 10,000/- comes to 80,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 9,000/- to the appellant for exhausting his leave for the period during medical treatment which was the result of said accident for which he was not wholly responsible. It is true that the said leave was adjusted to his leave account. Though such leave happens to be adjusted to the leave account, an employee loses the right of preserving that leave which would be useful for him at the time of retirement or at the time of his need. Therefore, due weightage has to be given to that. The Tribunal has granted Rs. 9,000/- as compensation on that count. I do not find it to be incorrect or improper keeping in view this aspect of the matter.
12. Thus, final amount comes to Rs. 70,000/- plus 10,000/- plus 9,000/-, total Rs. 89,000/-. The appellant is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs. 89,000/- from the date of accident i.e. 16-7-1992, with an interest at the rate of 12% per annum on it. The said amount be deposited by the insurance company in the Tribunal within two months else the appellant would be entitled to get the interest on that amount at the rate of 18% per annum. Certified copy of this order be given to the parties at early date, more particularly to the insurance company for enabling it to save it from the increased rate of interest.