Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Somabhai Dhurabhai Sindhava And Ors. on 16 December, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1(1994)ACC64, (1993)2GLR1043
JUDGMENT C.V. Jani, J.
1. (His Lordships after stating the facts of the case, further observed:)
2. Now for computing the future economic loss of an injured person, the Court has to apply its mind not only to the abstract percentage of loss of earning capacity, but also the actual economic loss sustained or likely to be sustained by the injured person. Merely computing the economic loss on the basis of the medical certificate regarding physical disability will amount to turning a blind eye to the reality of actual economic loss. It is admitted by all concerned at the Bar that Jivaji has been promoted twice after the accident and Saburbeg was promoted in the year 1987. Thus, the disability certified by the Doctor has not actually resulted in economic loss and it is not likely to result in such a loss till their retirement. It can of course be said that loss of earning capacity on account of physical disability would materialise after their retirement when in normal physical conditions they would be expected to do some private work on re-employment or some security job. Such a loss can be assessed for a period of about 5 years after retirement. It is not disputed that on pay revision effected from 1986, the pay-scale of a Constable is raised to Rs. 800-1150, that of a Head Constable Grade-II has been raised to Rs. 950-1400, and that of a Head Constable Grade-I has been raised to Rs. 1200-1800. The injured claimant would certainly get the benefit of these pay-scales during their service, but after the retirement they could not have expected to get the same salary even if they were physically fit.
3. We may, therefore, proceed on the basis that if a physically robust police man would get an amount of Rs. 1,000/- in private employment after retirement, the injured Jivaji with six per cent disability would get Rs. 940/- and he would suffer economic loss of Rs. 60/- p.m. This loss would come to Rs. 3,600/- for a period of five years. That is the reason why we have not disturbed the finding regarding future economic loss rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Jivaji, but we have arrived at the same conclusion on the basis of a more rational principle.
4. In the same way, Saburbeg would roughly suffer a loss of Rs. 200/- per month after the retirement due to his disability of 19.25% certified by the Doctor. The total future economic loss would therefore be Rs. 12,000/-. Saburbeg would, therefore, apparently be entitled to the additional compensation of Rs. 3,000/- after his retirement, but since he has already received the amount of Rs. 9,000/- under this head, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, he is adequately compensated for this loss by interest received by him during the last about 10 years. This may be a little unusual, but the prevailing practice of awarding interest on future economic loss which is likely to come into effect at a future date requires rethinking, as the obvious purpose of awarding interest is to compensate delayed payment.
(Rest of the Judgment is not material for the Reports)