Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Dr. O.P. Gupta And Ors. on 4 May, 1986
Equivalent citations: II(1987)ACC495
JUDGMENT G.M. Lodha, J.
1. The celebration of marriage were not complete when the marriage party of the bride groom Dr. Sanjay Singh suddenly met an accident at Amber, where they had gone in car to the Darshan of Goddess 'Shila Devi', The Corporation bus No. RSG 5408 driven rashly and negligently by the driver Malu Ram struck wildy against car on the wrong side of the road. The occupants including the claimants Dr. O.P. Gupta, Dr. Ram Singh and Gulab Chand Kasliwal received serious injuries on the head, neck and ribs etc.
2. These six appeals are related to the award against the Corporation but in favour of three injured separately, names of whom have been mentioned above. Both sides have filed appeal. The Corporation wants that the award should be quashed or for reducing the substantial claim. The claimants are not satisfied with the amount awarded. The dis-satisfaction of both have resulted in six appeal.
3. On the joint requests of the learned Counsel for all the parties I have heard the appeals jointly and as jointly prayed I am deciding all these appeals by a common judgment. It is more convenient because the award is also one and common, in which different amounts have been awarded to different claimants.
4. Having heard Mr. Ram Raj Lai Gupta, learned Counsel for the Corporation, Mr. S.C. Srivastava learned Counsel for the claimants and Mr. G.K. Bhartiya, learned Counsel for the driver, I am of opinion that no detailed discussion is required so far as question of rashness and negligence of the driver of the Corporation is concerned. It is well proved on record by tengible credible evidence rightly believed by the Tribunal and all the three advocates, appearing on behalf of the Corporation and the driver of the bus and the claimants could not be able to show any single infirmity vitiating that finding. Consequently, the finding of the Tribunal so far as factum of accident, the injuries caused to these three claimants and rashness and negligence of the driver of the Corporation are concluded confirmed.
5. With the above confirmation, the appeals of the Corporation fail and no other point survives so far as the Corporation's appeals are concerned.
6. Now the important aspect of the case is that the award of compensation in such cases where there has been a total disability should be increased or not. All the three claimants are well placed in their respective profession and business. Following details would give a birds eye view of the age of the claimants, nature of their professions or business, monthly income at the time of accident and existency of permanent disablement due to injuries caused in the accident.
Name Age Income Permanent disablement Dr. O.P. Gupta 50 years 3500/- 77.9% Dr. Ram Singh 52 years 4520/- 44% G.C. Kasliwal 61 years 6000/- 90 per cent
First two Dr. O.P. Gupta and Dr. Ram Singh are in Government service and their age of superannuation is 58 years.
7. However, Dr. O.P. Gupta is concerned, he is specialist in diabetes and is serving as Director, Medical and Health Service and Medical Education in State of Gujrat and Dr. Ram Singh is Professor and Director and Head of Post Graduate Department of Medicines, S.N. Medical College and Hospital, Agra. Gulab Chaad is a Jweller by profession and business.
8. The Tribunal has awarded following amount as general damages for loss of future income on account of impairment of the health in view any injuries Rs. 60,000/- each.
9. Mr, Srivastava is justified in making a grievance that this amount is inadequate.
10. According to the well established principles laid down in the judgments of various High Courts including this Court expectancy of life is now calculated at the age of 65 to 70 years because there has been all around development of the hygenic conditions in which we are living, better facilities and amenities and tremendous improvement of medical facility, with ever increasing science and technology. This aspsct of the case has been overlooked by the Tribunal.
11. In my opinion even the two doctors who were in service would continue to have private practice after the retirement. Instead of working out in each case the average expectancy of life and then using the multiplier of loss caused due to the permanent disability, I would take up the case of Gulab Chand and then adopt the method.
12. Gulab Chand Kasliwal at the age of 61 years has suffered 90 per cent permanent disability. He is earning 6,000/- per month. For a period of 9 years broadly speaking he would be deprived of this income because oa account of 90 per cent disability, virtually he cannot do any work as per the medical evidence and his own evidence. Thus, he should get the compensation as follows.
6,000 x 12 x 9 Keeping the expectancy of age as 70 years.
13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 60,000/- on the finding that expectancy would be 4 years. In my opinion since it would be 9 years the amount should be Rs. 1,20,000/-
14. Dr. Ram Singh was only 52 years of age. His permanent disablement is 44 per cent. His income is 4520/- per month. He continue to be in service even now. Out of Rs. 4520/- private practice he was earning Rs. 2187/- per month, this he would have continued even after retirement. Thus, on the same parity treating the expectancy age of 70 years, I would allow compensation as Rs, 1,20,000/-
15. In the case of Dr. O.P. Gupta, his age is 50 years and his income is Rs. 3500/- at the time of accident. After retirement he would have certainly continued his private practice but for his impairment, which is 77.9 per cent. The amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- is allowed to him also.
16. The result of the above discussions is that the award in all other respect is maintained and confirmed but the general damages and compensation is increased from Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 1,20,000/- in each case.
17. The appellants, Dr. Ram Singh, Dr. O.P. Gupta and Gulab Chand Kasliwal would also get interest at the rate of 12 psr cent from the date of application till the date of realisation as per the judgment in Kalyan Chameliwala v. Delhi Municipal Council and Ors. 1985 ACJ 645.
18. The amount paid against the above award would be adjusted and to that extent the interest would also be adjusted. These appeals of claimants are accepted.
19. The Corporation would pay the amount which has not been paid so far within a period of four moqths from today, failing which the future interest from that would be 18 per cent instead of 12 per cent. The parties would bear their own costs, so far as these appeals are concerned in this Court.