JUDGMENT
S.K. Keshote, J.
1. The appellant, an injured has filed this appeal against the judgment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamnagar dated 18-8-1988 passed in the Claim Petition No. 155 of 1982. The appellant who was injured in the vehicular accident while driving the Jeep of his employer lodged a claim of Rs. 3,40,000/-, against which the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,02,400/-. The appellant restricted the claim to Rs. 1,50,000/- only in the appeal.
2. The appellant was driving Jeep No. GJP 2344 and Opponent No. 1 was driving Truck No. GTW-1038. The appellant has come out with a case that the accident had taken place on account of the negligent driving on the part of the truck driver. The Tribunal has found it to be a case of contributory negligence the truck driver was held to be negligent to the extent of 75% and the appellant–Jeep driver was held to be negligent to the extent of 25%. So far as disability which the appellant has sustained because of this accident is concerned, the Tribunal has held that he is able to prove the disability, but not to the extent of 80%. The Tribunal awarded the amount under the different heads as under:
1. Rs. 35,000/ for pain, shock, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life.
2. Rs. 10,000/ for attendent’s charges.
3. Rs. 5,000/ medical charges,
4. Rs. 86,400/ for loss of future income.
Rs.1,36,400/
3. Out of the said amount, Rs. 34,000/-had been deducted towards 25% contributory negligence of the appellant. The claim warded is to the extent of Rs. 1,02,400/ as stated earlier. The learned counsel for the appellant has not provided any assistance to the Court. The first ground raised in the appeal is that the appellant was not negligent at all and as such the Award of the Tribunal to the extent, his negligence has been fixed at 25%, suffers from infirmity. After going through the judgment of the Tribunal, I do not find any substance in this contention. Both the vehicles i.e. Truck and Jeep, as revealed from the panchnama Exh. 29, were damaged on the right side. From the panchnama, it further reveals that the road is 25ft wide. Taking into consideration this fact, the Tribunal has rightly held that in case, both the drivers would have been careful than the vehicles would not have been damaged on right side. It is not a case of head on collission between the two vehicles. As per the panchnama, the Truck was not damaged in the front side.
4. The respondent Pithalal Popatlal, in his statement has admitted in the cross-examination that the road was 80ft wide including the kachha road at the place of accident. He further stated that the truck was on right side of the road and the Jeep coming with a high speed was on the wrong side, and when it arrived near the truck, the driver swerved the jeep car on the left side of the road from the right side and as a result, the jeep car dashed on the right side of the truck. The Tribunal did not accept the evidence of Mr. Pithalal Popatlal to be wholly reliable. In the presence of the evidence of the parties, the Tribunal has rightly reached the conclusion that both the drivers were negligent. The accident, looking to the width of the road, could have been avoided in case both the drivers would have taken due care. The negligence which has been attributed to the appellant cannot be said to be without any basis or based on no evidence and consideration thereof. So far as proportionate negligence is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly apportioned the same. It is ultimately a matter to be decided on evidence by the Tribunal and normally this Court sitting in appeal should not interfere therewith. The appellant has failed to make out a case on this ground.
5. Now remains the question of quantum of amount of damages. The appellant was a driver. After this accident he was taken back in the service as Chokidar, though his pay was protected. Subsequently, the appellant’s pay scale was reduced and he was fixed In the pay scale of Class IV employee. That matter is sub judice before the Civil Court, Jamnagar. The appellant was sent for the medical examination and the Medical Board has certified him to be unfit for Government service. On the basis of the said report, the appellant was dismissed from the services. This dismissal order has been challenged by the appellant before this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 7093/89 and that special “civil application was ordered to be heard along with this First Appeal. That special civil application has already been decided by this Court on 28-2-1996 and the order of dismissal of the appellant from the service has been set aside. I have taken these facts from the Special Civil Application No. 7093/89 which is ordered to be listed along with this First Appeal. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the appellant’s pay has been reduced. Not only this, his licence for the driving has been cancelled and further he has been declared medically unfit for the job of driving. The pay-scale of the post of driver is Rs. 950-1500, whereas the pay-scale of Watchman is of Rs. 750-940. By reversion, the pay of the appellant has been reduced. This reduction of the pay is as result of the accident. This reduction of the pay will be there once for all and it will affect the pension and other retirement benefits also. Though the reversion of the appellant is sub-judice before the Civil Court and it may be possible that the Civil Court may decide the matter in his favour, but the facts remain that because of the accident, the pay-scale of the appellant has been reduced. While awarding the amount of damages, the appellant has right to contend that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future promotional chances of the appellant as well as the loss which will result in the pension and retirement benefits. Similarly, the multiplier of 18 looking to the age of the appellant seems to be on lower side. Taking into consideration all these aspects, I am of the opinion that monthly loss of the income of Rs. 500/- would be justified and reasonable figure and the multiplier should have been taken at to as claimed by the appellant. So calculating the damages in the head of loss of income, the appellant is entitled for the total amount of Rs. 1,20,000/-instead of Rs. 86,400/-. The appellant has not made any grievance regarding the other amounts awarded by the Tribunal.
6. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The appellant shall be entitled for the amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- under the head of loss of income against Rs. 86,400/ – awarded by the Tribunal. Under this head, additional amount of Rs. 33,600/- is added. As the appellant himself has contributed to the negligence to the extent of 25% and as such Rs. 8400/- is to be deducted from this amount. After deducting this amount, the appellant shall be entitled for Rs. 25,200/- as an additional compensation. The appellant is entitled to the interest on this amount at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the petition. The Award of the Tribunal stands modified to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.