Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. K.K. Goyal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 4 May, 2005
Equivalent citations: IV(2005)ACC543, 2006ACJ1418, (2005)141PLR390
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: D.K. Jain, Hemant Gupta
JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J.
1. The present appeal under clause. X of the Letters Patent is against the judgment and order dated October 10, 1984 passed by. Learned Single Judge whereby the appellant was granted total compensation of Rs. 3 lacs on account of injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident.
2. The appellant while pillion riding scooter driven by Dr. Satish Kumar Aggarwal met with an accident on March 13, 1975 with a military truck on the road between Sectors 16 and 10, Chandigarh. In the said accident, the appellant suffered multiple injuries which led to hospitalisation for a long period as well as permanent physical disability. The learned Tribunal assessed the compensation awardable to the appellant at Rs. 2,80,000/- but returned a finding that it is a case of contributory negligence and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,40,000/- only. While determining the amount of compensation at Rs. 2,80,000/-, the learned Tribunal assessed the loss of future earning at Rs. 1100/- per month for 15 years, amounting, to Rs. 1,98,000/-, whereas awarded a sum of Rs. 82.000/- on various accounts including pain and suffering, medical expenses and on account of loss of expectancy of his life.
3. In appeal against the said award by the appellant, the finding regarding contributory negligence was set aside but the loss of earnings was assessed at Rs. 1,50,000/-. The learned Single Judge also awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards an attendant and medical expenses. The learned Single Judge awarded consolidated sum of Rs.l lacs on account of damages towards pain and suffering; physical disability and loss of amenities.
4. Still aggrieved against the computation of the compensation amount, the claimant-appellant is in present appeal. The appellant is a doctor having master's decree in Surgery and was aged 30 years at the time of accident. At the time of accident, he was drawing Rs. 1100-1200/- as salary. The appellant was examined by the Medical Board constituted by the Director, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, to examine and opine on the physical and mental condition of the appellant with particular reference to his earning capacity and disabilities. The Board consisted of three eminent doctors, namely, Dr. J.S. Chopra, Professor and Head of the Department of Neurology, Chairman; Dr. V.K. Kak, Professor and Head of the Department of Neuro Surgery; and Dr. S.D. Deodhar, Assistant Professor, Department of Medicines, who gave their opinion which is Exhibit CA. As per said report, there is total loss of vision in the left eye; loss of sense of smell; large bony defect in right frontal region and depression of right eye ball resulting in facial disfigurement; and inability to walk without support on account of fracture of right femur. The appellant was also found suffering from epileptic fits as a direct result of injury to brain. Regarding mental disability, he had profound loss of higher mental functions as evidenced by loss orientation, memory, calculation and judgment intelligence. Extensive damage and scarring of both frontal lobes will result in permanent lack of initiative, impaired social adjustment, abnormal behaviour and mannerism, impaired memory and judgment and also necessity of an attendant to look after him throughout his life. His earning capacity as a Medical Doctor is nil and the appellant would never be able to function as a physician or surgeon.
5. The extent of injuries, total loss of earning capacity and mental condition leave no manner of doubt about the miserable condition of a promising young doctor. The appellant, a doctor, at the age of 30 years has met with an accident causing such severe permanent loss. No amount of compensation would be sufficient to compensate the extent of injuries and the loss suffered by the appellant. But still the injury and the loss to the appellant is required to be compensated in terms of money so as to provide sustenance to the appellant. Tortfeasor is required to compensate in monetary terms so far as possible.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to The Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Mahadeva Shetty and Anr., (2005-1)139 P.L.R. 6 to contend that multiplier of 17 should have been applied for determining the amount of compensation of loss of income. In the said case, the notional income of the Mason was fixed at Rs. 1200/- and a multiplier of 17 fixed by the High Court was found to be in order and, thus, the amount of compensation was assessed.
7. Keeping in view the principle of law laid down in the said judgment and the fact that the appellant was only 30 years of age and a qualified doctor having Master's Degree in Surgery, compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/- (Rs. 1100/- x 12 x 17 = 2,24,400/- rounded off to Rs. 2,25,000/- ) on account of loss of earning capacity would be the just amount of compensation. The said amount of compensation is referable to the date of filing of application for claim of compensation on 15.9.1975. Therefore, the income and the price index of the said year is relevant for determination of the amount of compensation. We do not find any reason to modify the award of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of pain and suffering; medical expenses and expenses for engaging attendant.
8. Consequently the appeal is allowed with costs. The judgment dated 10.11.1984 passed by the learned Single Judge is modified so as to award a total compensation on account of loss of earning capacity of Rs. 2,25,000/- along with, interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation. However, if the amount of enhanced compensation is deposited within a period of three months from today, the award shall be deemed to be satisfied if the respondents deposit the enhanced amount of compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till realisation. If the amount of compensation is not deposited within the aforesaid period, the appellant shall be entitled to recover the compensation alongwith the interest at the rate of 12% per annum.