Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parvinder Singh vs Harsh Kumar Trihan And Ors. on 11 August, 1995
Equivalent citations: I(1996)ACC423, 1996ACJ596, (1995)111PLR519
Author: Sarojnei Saksena
Bench: Sarojnei Saksena
JUDGMENT Sarojnei Saksena, J.
1. Injured Parvinder Singh has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded to him by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, by its award dated January 24, 1994.
2. So far as the details of the vehicular accident, in which the appellant sustained injuries, are concerned, they are not disputed before me. It is also not disputed that at the time of this accident, respondent No. 2 was driving truck No. HNC-6199 on April 22, 1991, respondent No. 1 is its owner and it was insured with respondent No. 3.
3. Appellant's contention is that in this accident he sustained injuries:-
(1) Fracture shaft humerus of right side.
(2) Compound fracture of colles.
(3) Radial nerve injury.
(4) Six teeth were avulsed.
(5) Fracture nasal bone.
After the accident immediately he was taken to the Civil Hospital, Karnal, which after giving him first aid, referred him to P.G.I. Chandigarh, wherein he remained an indoor patient for 47 days. He has undergone three operations. A steel plate was inserted in his right arm. As per the doctor's certificate, his permanent disability is to the extent of 14 per cent. In this accident he sustained injury on his nose also. Due to fracture of the jaw, his power of mastication is lowered down. Due to the fracture of his right arm, his capacity to write efficiently and with speed is also impaired. Due to these injuries, his face is disfigured. As he has sustained severe injury in his right arm, now he cannot drive the vehicle properly due to impairment of the power of grip. Artificial teeth are put in his mouth. Iron plate inserted in his right arm is still there. During arguments, it was contended that he has to undergo another operation to get this iron plate removed.
4. Appellant's learned counsel contends that the appellant suffered acute pain and suffering during this period. As his face is disfigured, now he is unable to get a good girl as his life partner. He belongs to an elite society. As he is now unable to write with his right hand fluently, he cannot get a good job either in the Government departments or in the private sector. At the time of the accident he was a student of Final year of Mechanical Engineering. He could not resume his studies for one year. When he appeared in the examination of last semester with the help of a writ he could not secure good percentage. That has also lowered down his chances of getting a good job. In future also he is going to suffer because of these injuries. His prospects of earning handsomely in future are also diminished. The learned Claims Tribunal has not taken these facts into consideration. The appellant has stated unequivocally that he has spent Rs. one lac on his medication charges, special diet, attendant and transportation etc. His statement is duly corroborated by the statement of Dr. Suresh Singla PW-4, who has testified that the appellant was hospitalised for 47 days and even thereafter he is advised to come to P.G.I, regularly for physiotherapy and other follow up examination. He has undergone three operations. The first operation was for debribement of the wounds and the second operation was done for open reduction and internal fixation with a steel plate. The third operation was wiring of mandible and fixation of maxilla. He too has testified that the appellant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 14 per cent. The certificate is Exhibit P-2 . The said doctor has further testified that medicines were purchased by the appellant himself. He has made it clear that the injury on the right hand of the appellant has affected the performance of doing the job of a Mechanical Engineer an also in writing. Further in the cross-examination he is categoric that there are no chances of recovery of the said injury received by the appellant. It is not possible for him now to write with fluency. He has also confirmed that the injury sustained by he appellant on his nose has tilted the nose and it has deformed his face.
5. Appellant's learned counsel contends that despite this evidence on record, the Claims Tribunal has only awarded him Rs. one lac as compensation, which is hardly an adequate compensation for the injuries sustained by him as well as for future pecuniary losses that he is likely to sustain. According to him, minimum Rs. 5 lacs compensation should have been awarded to the appellant for the said injuries. On account of pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses. To buttress his contentions, he has relied on R.D. Hattagadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., (1995-2) 110 P.L.R. 298 (S.C.); Inderjit Kaur v. Punjab State, (1985-1) 87 P.L.R. 521; Sawatantra Kumar Lamba v. Mrs. Sheela Didi, (1987-1)92 P.L.R. 1; Tejinder Singh v. Inderjit Singh, (1987-2) 92 P.L.R. 417 and Bhavirisetty Rama Prasad v. Punyakoti Govindaswamy and Anr., A.I.R. 1995 A.P. 61.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3, replying on State of Kerala v. Vijayakumaran Nair, 1982 A.C.J. 451 contended that power of appellate Court to interfere in the amount of compensation can only be exercised when the Claims Tribunal has acted on a wrong principle of law or that it has made an entirely erroneous estimate of damages. Further, he contends that as is evident from Ebrahim Fakir v. Sitaram, 1990 A.C.J. 465; New India Assurance Company v. Abdul Mazid, (1993)2 A.C.C. 128; Prakash Chemicals v. Krishna Singh, (1993)2 A.C.C. 160; Narinderjit Singh v. Punjab State through Secy. and Anr., (1993)2 A.C.C. 239; Arun Kumar v. Food Corp. of India and Ors., (1993)2 A.C.C. 283, Union of India and Ors. v. Abdulla Khan Biban Khan and Ors., (1993)2 A.C.C. 427 and General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas and Ors., (1994-2) 107 P.L.R. 1 (S.C.) adequate compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant. He further submits that there is no pleading that due to these injuries in future also he will be suffering pecuniary losses. He also submits that there is no evidence that this disability would affect or is likely to affect the earning capacity of the appellant. Hence, on this count the appellant is not entitled to any damages.
7. It is true that the appellate Court can interfere in the quantum of damages only when it finds that the Tribunal has acted on a wrong principle of law or that it has made an entirely erroneous estimate of damages. The injuries sustained by the appellant are enumerated above. What sufferings he will have to suffer in future are also on record. The permanent disability suffered by him is duly proved. Even the doctor has stated that in future he will not be able to write efficiently. Definitely that is going to affect his future career as he is a Mechanical Engineer. He lost one year in his academic studies. When he appeared in the eighth semester and that too with the help of a writer, his percentage of marks was reduced by 10 per cent. Had he not sustained these injuries, he could have done very well in the examination, as in the seventh semester he improved his percentage appreciably well. The Tribunal has not considered this aspect that in the eighth semester examination the appellant could take the examination with the help of a writer only. That positively affects the performance of the student.
8. In Ebrahim Fakir's case (supra) there was no evidence that disability would have affected or was likely to affect the earning capacity of the injured. Hence no damages on that count were awarded. But in this case, as I have discussed above, not only the appellant but even the doctor has stated that this permanent disability is going to affect his earning capacity in future. In Abdul Mazi's case (supra) the injured became lame permanently. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 35,000/- under different heads and it was held proper. In Krishna Singh's case (supra) there was shortening of leg by one inch. The injured sustained 30 percent disability. He was an Electrical Engineer aged 44 years. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 60,000/-. The High Court reduced it to Rs. 42,200/-. In Narinderjit Singh's case (supra) the injured had suffered 15 percent permanent disability. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 7100/- as compensation. This was enhanced to Rs. 12,000/-. In Arun Kumar's case (supra) the injured was a student of Polytechnic Engineering College. He lost one year of studies due to the injuries sustained by him and also buffered 15 percent permanent disability. The compensation of Rs., 5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal was enhanced by the High Court to Rs. 24,200/-. In Abdulla Khan Biban Khan's case (supra) the injured sustained 17 percent permanent disability. In that case compensation of Rs. 50,000/-was held to be proper. In Susamma Thomas's case (supra) the Apex Court reduced the compensation from Rs. 2.64,000/- to Rs. 2,25,000/-. In Dr. Naresh Chandra Mytle v. Haryana State and Ors., (1995-1) 109 P.L.R. 89 an Orthopaedic Surgeon in Government job sustained injuries. He had permanent disability of 30 per cent. The Court considered the expected loss of income even after retirement at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month and it was multiplied by 7, and thus Rs. one lac were awarded as compensation.
9. In R.D. Hattangadi's case (supra) pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages were awarded to a lawyer, aged 52 years, who suffered total disability. He became paraplegic. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 26,25,992/-, which was reduced by the High Court to Rs. 8,57,352/- which was again enhanced by the Supreme Court. In Inderjit Kaur's case (supra) the injured, aged 27 years, was a Lecturer in a College. Her right arm was chopped off. She was awarded Rs. one lac for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyments of life; Rs. 25,000/- for loss of prospects of marriage; Rs. 25,000/- as cost of attendant; Rs. 40,000/- for expenses incurred for going abroad for getting the artificial limb, Rs. 7000/- for loss of income and Rs. 3,000/- for medical treatment in India. Thus, in all Rs. two lacs were awarded to her.
10. In Mrs. Sheela Didi's case (supra) an advocate of 30 years, sustained 20 percent permanent disability. She was hospitalised for 16 days. Apart from the compensation awarded on account of actual expenses like Rs. 5000/- on medicines, Rs. 4800/- for special diet, Rs. 900/- for personal servant, and Rs. 5000/- for gratuitous service Rs. 20,000/- were also awarded for loss of earning for 10 months and Rs. 9,000/- as pecuniary loss at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month multiplied by 20. In Tejinder Singh's case (supra) compensation of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Court below, was enhanced to Rs. one lac.
11. In Thomas v. British Railways Board, 1977 A.C.J. 222 (C.A. England) Scarman, L.J. observed:
"the greatest element of damage in a case such as this is the pain, the suffering and the loss of the ordinary pleasures and convenience associated with healthy and mobile limbs. All that the court can do is to award such a sum as will enable the plaintiff to acquire some material possessions or to develop a life-style which will offset to some extent her terrible disability."
In another judgment Birkett v. Hades 1983 A.C.J. 697 (C.A. England) the position has been stated:-
" The Judge has to award compensation for the past and also for the future pain, suffering and loss of amenities. The future that lies ahead, beyond the date of trial, is often of more consequence than the past. The Judge awards a lump sum at the date of trial to cover all."
In the words of Lord Marris in H. West & Son Ltd. v. Shephard, 1958-65 A.C.J. 507 (H.L. England) :
"Money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All that Judges and Courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded as giving reasonable compensation."
12. While quoting the above authorities, the Tribunal was aware of the principles under which in such a case pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses are to be compensated to the injured. It is evident that his physical frame has been badly battered and shattered. He is disfigured. They cannot get a good matrimonial alliance to his satisfaction. He belongs to an educated family of high social status. He is Mechanical Engineer. He suffered a loss of one academic year because of this accident and even thereafter when he appeared in the 8th semester he could not do well as he did in the 7th semester. The calibre, the intelligence, to secure good pecentage to get a good job is evident from this fact that despite these injuries when he appeared in the 8th semester examination and that too with the help of a writer he could secure 57 per cent marks, though in the 7th semester he secured 67 percent marks. Thus in the past he improved his percentage from 58 to 67 per cent. Had he not sustained these injuries, he could have further improved his percentage in the final year.
13. It is a well known fact that in the Engineering College in the final year bright students are picked up by private sector people and they are offered lucrative jobs. The appellant has suffered on that account also. It is proved not only by the appellant but also by the statement of Dr. Singla that now the appellant, being a Mechanical Engineer, cannot write fluently with his right hand. His power of grip is also impaired. Now cannot drive a vehicle properly. He was a good player of handball as well and rank holder, but now he cannot play any out-door games. Thus, the Tribunal has totally ignored his future pecuniary losses. The Tribunal has awarded him only Rs. 10,000/- for loss of matrimonial prospects, Rs. 14,000/- for permanent disability, Rs. 31,000/- for special diet, transport, attendant and medical expenses, Rs. 10,000/- for future loss of earning and Rs. 35,000/- for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life. Thus, in all a sum of Rs. one lac is awarded to the appellant.
14. It is obvious that the award is on the lower side. A Mechanical Engineer will have to face a lot of pecuniary losses in future, as he would not be in a position to get a good job. His right hand is permanently affected. He cannot write fluently. His grip power is also impaired. He cannot enjoy the amenities of life as his face is disfigured. His power of mastication is also lowered. All these sufferings (sic) will have to undergo throughout his life. So far as future losses are concerned, a multiplier is to be applied. Hence, in my considered view the appellant is entitled to get Rs. 30,000/- for loss of matrimonial prospects, Rs. 40,000/- for permanent disability, Rs. 50,000/- for special diet, transport, attendant and medical expenses, and Rs. 80,000/-for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life i.e. in total Rs. 2,00,000/- under the above heads. So far as his future prospects are concerned he is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 2 lacs. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and compensation is enhanced to Rs. 4 lacs. The appellant is entitled to recover interests on the amount of Rs. 2 lacs at the rate of 12 per cent per annum awarded under different heads from the date of filing of the claim petition. In so far as the award of Rs. 2 lacs for future prospects is concerned, he will not be entitled to charge any interest on it. The appellant shall also be entitled to receive costs.