Punjab-Haryana High Court
P.R. Valayu Dhan And Ors. vs R.P. Khosla on 14 September, 1987
Equivalent citations: 2(1988)ACC329
JUDGMENT Gokal Chand Mital, J.
1. On 21st April, 1981 Mr. Justice R P. Khosla (retired Judge of this Court) (hereinafter called 'Justice Khosla'), was coming to Chandigarh from Delhi in his fiat car No. CH 200. When he was on G.T. Road near D.A.V. High Secondary School, Dera Bassi, at about 8.30 PM, truck No. HRE 138 owned by Mukandi Lal and driven by Valayu Dhan and insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. came from the opposite direction. The truck collided with the car, as a result of which Justice Khosla received multiple injuries and the car was extensively damaged. Justice Khosla was removed to PGI, Chandigarh. When examined, the doctors found the following injuries:
(1) Lacerated wound (R) eye both lids. Upper lid full thickness L.W. from lid margin to eye-brow. Lower lid: full thickness L.W. extending from margin to about 1.5 cms including conjuctiva. Extensive brusing over the eye and fracture Zygoma (R) with minimal depression. (2) Lacerated wound 1 inch x 1/2 inch on the dorsum of (R) forearm, 3 inch proximal to the wrist joint. (3) A half an inch lacerated wound on the anteromedial aspect of the (R) leg 3 inch proximal to the ankle joint with multiple superficial abrasions from the right leg. (4) Posterior dislocation of the (R) hip with fracture of the lip of acetabulum which confirmed radiologically. (5) Pott's fracture (R) ankle joint.
(6) Soft tissue injuries of the right chest wall.
The medical certificate in this behalf is Exhibit P1 on the record and Dr. Raj Bahadur Registrar Orthopeadic Surgery, PGI, Chandigarh appeared as PW1. Certificate Exhibit P1 show s that he was operated under general anesthesia, for fracture and dislocation of hip bone and ankle shown at injuries Nos. 4 and 5 respectively, and he remained admitted in the private ward of PGI from 21st April, 1981 to 3rd June, 1981, during which period skin traction with A/K skin traction and POP cast below knee. This shows that for 43 days he had to be an indoor patient.
2. The doctor in his statement made on oath before the Court stated that Justice Khosla, who was 76 years old at the time of accident, remained under treatment by way of follow-up, after discharge from ths hospital a,s an out-door patient. In the beginning he was advised active exercise, non weight warning and crutch walking. Subsequently, he was examined and treated on 2-7-1981, 16-7-1981, 24-3-1982, 5-5-1982, 6-8-1982 and 7-8-1982. The doctor had made his statement on 10-9-1982. According to his opinion Justice Khosla was not relieved of the trouble because of the dislocation of the hip and there were possibilities of avascular necrosis of the head of the femur. Even till then, that is, more than a year after the accident Justice Khosla was suffering from pain, had difficulty in climbing the stairs. The X-ray taken on 5-5-1982 had revealed extra articular calsification and for the pain in the hip short wave diathermy course was advised. Since over a year had passed by then since accident Justice Khosla had not recovered and the doctor was of the opinion that there was possibility of 40 percent permanent physical impairment in the right lower extremity.
3. The statement of the aforesaid doctor is corroborated by the statement of Dr. J. Rai, Assistant Professor, Consultant, Orthopedics, PGI, Chandigarh, who appeared as PW 11. The claimant himself appeared as PW 12 and testified about the pain and suffering due to the injuries received in the accident, which continued to trouble him till he appeared in Court on 9th April, 1983, and gave detailed statement of accounts regarding the heads under which compensation could be awarded to him in accordance with law.
4. Investigating Officer Gulzar Singh appeared as PW 7 and stated that he was not able to record the statement of Justice Khosla for completing the investigation regarding the FIR lodged after the accident, for 9 days because earlier to that he was not fit to make a statement. Justice Khosla was driving the car and the photographs on the record show how the car was completely damaged on the right side, that is the driver's side. After seeing the photographs, one can only say that Justice Khosla was lucky to survive. The case was contested. The blame for the accident was put on the claimant.
5. On the contest of the parties, the following issues were framed:
(1) Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck HRE-138 by respondent No. 1 as alleged? (2) To what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled and from which of the respondents. (3) Relief.
On the evidence led in the case, the Tribunal by a well considered award dated 2nd May, 1983, came to the conclusion that the claimant was entitled to Rs. 1,22,720/- for the bodily injuries on the various counts but awarded Rs. l,06,000/-as claimed, and Rs. 20,000/- for damage to the car. This is appeal by the driver, the previous owner and the owner, in whose name the truck stood at the time of accident and the Insurance Company.
6. The appeal was admitted on 26-7-1983 and the stay matter was heard on 2-8-1983, when it was ordered that the decretal amount be deposited with the Tribunal within six weeks' of the order and the deposited amount be paid to the claimant on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,06,000/ and surety bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with proportionate interest and costs. It is stated at the bar that against the order dated 2nd August, 1983, the matter was taken up in LPA, bearing No. 761 of 1983, which was dismissed in limine on 2-9-1983 and then in SLP to the highest Court, bearing No. 1176 of 1984, which was dismissed on 9-9-1984. Shri Kaushal, Senior Advocate, after obtaining instructions has stated at the bar that Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court had observed that to a retired Judge, small amount of Rs. 1,26,000/- has been awarded and if the matter had been before them they might have awarded Rs 3. lacs and with these oral observations, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed. Now the appeal has been posted for final disposal.
7. No argument has been raised before me regarding the compensation allowed for damage to the car. Hence the award of the Court below in this behalf is upheld. Challenge is only made to the quantum of compensation with regard to the injuries.
8. Adverting to the compensation awarded to Justice Khosla, for the disability in the hip joint and the ankle, the bodily pain and suffering which he suffered after accident till he was discharged and continued to suffer till today and would suffer till he lives, would be so much that it would be difficult to evaluate in terms of money but still damages can be assessed under law under the various heads, whether by way of special damages or general. On these two counts for a retired Judge, I consider that the amount of Rs. 1,06,000/- as claimed, was on the lower side at the age when Justice Khosla suffered the hip and ankle injuries Besides the doctors' opinion and the statement of Justice Khosla, one can imagine the pain and suffering which Justice Khosla must have suffered at the age of 76 years due to these injuries caused in the accident. The found facts speak for themselves and hardly need elaborate discussion. Hence, I uphold the award of the Tribunal on the aforesaid process of reasoning.
9. It is however ordered that out of the deposited amount the claimant would be entitled to appropriate first towards costs of the Tribunal, then towards interest and balance towards the principal and if in this manner something is still due to the claimant, he would be entitled to recover the same along with 12 per cent interest thereon till realization.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is dismissed with costs, which are quantified at Rs. 2000/-.