Himachal Pradesh High Court
Himachal Road Transport Corporation vs Mani Ram on 13 November, 1986
Equivalent citations: I(1988)ACC77
JUDGMENT P.D. Desai, C.J.
1. The only point which has been urged in support of the appeal relates to the quantum of compensation.
2. The evidence of the first respondent (claimant) is to the effect that he was earning Rs. 750/- per month by way of salary and that he was being provided by his employer with two free meals and tea every day. The Tribunal computed the value of the aforesaid perquisites at Rs. 150/-per month and added the said amount to the sum of Rs. 750/- and accordingly determined the total monthly income of the first respondent at Rs. 900/-. On the aforesaid basis and taking into consideration the medical evidence, which had assessed the permanent disability at approximately 50%, the loss of earning capacity was assessed at 50%. In terms of money, the loss of earning capacity was computed at Rs. 450/- per month, that is, Rs. 5400/- per annum, on the aforesaid footing. In view of the fact that the claimant-respondent was aged about 32 at the material time, the multiplier of 18 was applied and, accordingly, compensation for the loss of earning capacity was assessed at Rs. 97,200/- A sum of Rs. 3,000/- was awarded as reimbursement for the cost of medical treatment and a further sum of Rs. 5000/- as com-pensation for pain, shock and suffering. The total award in the sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- came to be made on the foregoing basis.
3. I do not think the award calls for interference even if the same method for arriving at just compensation is not adopted. The ultimate result cannot be different.
4. The evidence on record establishes that the first respondent was discharged from service after the accident and that on and from the said day till the date of trial, that is, till the day of the recording of his evidence in the present proceeding, he was unemployed. The unemployment was the direct result of the accident. Taking only Rs. 750/- to be his monthly income, the loss sustained upto the date of trial works out to Rs. 15,000/- An expenditure in the sum of Rs. 3,000/- is held to have been incurred by the first respondent towards medical treatment which must be added to the actual loss which he has suffered in terms of money till the date of trial. To the sum of Rs. 18,000/- arrived at accordingly must be added the compensation for non-pecuniary loss under the head of pain, shock and suffering and the loss of amenities of life on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the medical evidence, which establishes the extent and nature of the accident injury and its after-effects, compensation in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- under this head is the minimum to which the first respondent is entitled.
5. The future pecuniary loss which the first respondent will suffer as a result of the accident must receive consideration next. Such loss will comprise the loss of earning capacity as well as the expenses likely to be incurred on the future medical treatment. The medical evidence establishes that despite the operation performed on the left leg in which there was a compound fracture of both the bones, the woes of the first respondent have not come to an end. The infection in the bones and the tissues was deep and puss was running from the fractured bones even while the trial of the claim petition was under process. According to the expert evidence the possibility of gangrene setting in the infected wound could not be ruled and medical treatment was still being administered to the first respondent as an outdoor patient. The accident injury, according to the medical evidence, has caused permanent disability to the extent of 50% approximately. The evidence on record shows that even on the day on which the testimony of the first respondent was recorded, he was still on the crutches Taking into consideration the material evidence and assessing the same on the basis of the probabilities and realities of life, the loss of earning capacity cannot be computed at less than 40%. In view of the fact that prior to the accident the monthly income of the first respondent was Rs. 750/- the loss of earning capacity can justly be computed at Rs. 300/- per month, that is, Rs. 3600/- per annum. Applying the multiplier of 15, the compensation for the loss of earning capacity works out to Rs. 54,000/-. To this must be added compensation for the cost of medical treatment which the petitioner will be required to take in future. The medical evidence on this point, which has been summarised above, indicates that the duration and course of the medical treatment to be administered in future to the first respondent is uncertain and unpredictable. It would not be unreasonable to assume, however, that the treatment will have to continue for a fairly long period and may even call for another surgical intervention. Under the circumstances, compensation in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- for the cost of future medical treatment would be just and proper.
6. Adding up the compensation under the different heads awardable as aforesaid, the total compensation works out to Rs. 1,02,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,05,200/-. The award is thus within the brackets and no ground for interference at the appellate stage is thus made out.
7. The appeal is, therefore, summarily dismissed.