Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Lakhwinder Kaur And Ors. on 14 July, 2005
Equivalent citations: (2005)141PLR160, AIR 2006 (NOC) 286 (PUNJ. AND HAR.) = (2005) 3 PUN LR 160(P&H)
JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This is defendant's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below that the defendant-appellant who is State of Punjab acting through Dr. P.R. Ghuman, respondent No. 2 was negligent in performing tubectomy surgery of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 because after the surgery in a family planning camp on 14.2.1992 a female child is born to her on 27.3.1994. There are concurrent findings that defendant-appellant was negligent as a result of which the plaintiff-respondent has delivered a female child on 27.3.1994. The matter is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Santra, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 1888. The Courts below have awarded a sum of rupees two lacs to the plaintiff-respondent alongwith recovery of an amount of Rs. 4,296/- paid by the plaintiff-respondent as court fee.
2. Learned State counsel has argued that assessment of the compensation is on the higher side as ordinarily in such like cases compensation of not more than rupees one lac is paid. According to the learned State Counsel there is no formula adopted for assessing the award of compensation.
3. After hearing the learned counsel I am of the considered view that no interference in the findings of facts as well as law would be warranted because the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme in Santra's case (supra). The negligence of the defendant-appellant is writ large and there is no explanation as to how one of the two Fallopian Tube remained un-operated which lead to the conception of the plaintiff-respondent. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the findings of facts and the calculation of compensation by the Courts below. The formula adopted for calculating the amount of rupees two lacs is discernible from reading of para 12 of the trial Court judgment which reads as under:
"Now the next question arises for consideration is as to what should be the reasonable amount required for maintenance and marriage of unwanted girl child born to the plaintiff. Taking into consideration the marriageable age of a girl child as 20 years maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per year which comes to Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 90,000/- as marriage expenses and Rs. 10,000/- for medical and other expenses for a period of 20 years for a unwanted girl child are reasonable amount. As such in total plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/-."
4. There cannot be any straight jacket formula for assessing compensation in such like cases. However, the method adopted by the trial Court cannot be considered as unrealist. The plaintiff- respondent has been awarded maintenance for 20 years @ Rs. 5,000/- per year which comes to Rs. one lac. By no stretch of imagination a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per year could be considered as excessive because the total amount per month would be less than Rs. 500/-. Then a sum of Rs. 90,000/- for her marriage expenses and Rs. 10,000/- for medical and other expenses for a period of 20 years again cannot be considered excessive. In fact the amount awarded is modest. Therefore, no interference is warranted. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.