Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Naresh Chandra Mytle vs Haryana State And Ors. on 31 August, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1995ACJ987, (1995)109PLR89
ORDER V.K. Bali, J.
1. The appellant Dr. Naresh Chander who has done Master of Surgery in two Specialities and is Orthopaedic Surgeon in Government Service at the time when he sustained injuries in a road accident complains of inadequate compensation granted to him by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind which awarded him Rs. 25,200/- as financial lose and Rs. 4,800/- for pain and suffering bringing the total compensation to Rs. 30,000/- and which has since been confirmed by the learned single Judge with slight modification of granting 12 per cent interest per annum on amount awarded to him from the date of application to the date of its payment. In totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the grant of Rs. 30,000/- only is, indeed, inadequate and therefore, the compensation deserves to be suitably enhanced.
2. Admittedly, the appellant sustained injuries when the Haryana Roadways Bus in which he was travelling was involved in an accident with another bus coming from the opposite direction. This accident took place on 5th May, 1977 on Rohtak-Jind road. Both the Bus Drivers were held negligent equally and a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was awarded to the appellant as compensation for the injuries suffered by him.
3. The unrebutted evidence on the record reveals that the appellant when medically examined by Dr. P.S. Maini were found to have following injuries on his person:-
"One lacertaed would 3-1/2x 1-2/2 in size over the back of the right elbow extending from the lower part of the back of the right arm to the back of the right forearm, fresh bleeding was there. Bone pieces were seen.
4. Dr. P.S. Maini, professor and Head of the Department of orthopaedic Surgery, Medical College Hospital, Rohtak PW. 6 who performed the operation deposed that the patient had compound fracture involving the bones of right elbow joint and he was operated on the date of accident. His fractures were healed but his right elbow is partially stiff and he had some weakness in the right hand. He has a permanent partial disability of about 30%. The witness was not cross examined which clearly establishes that the statement made by Dr. P.S. Maini was accepted. The appellant, as stated above, who himself is an orthopaedic surgeon deposed that he was double M.S. and was in government service. He was senior Medical Officer posted at Bhiwani. While doing M.S., the intended to start his private practice in due course by opening a Nursing Home. With the disability he had, he cold not think of opening a Nursing Home as his confidence was shaken. The disability has affected his future income and prospects. He went on to depose that the Medical Practitioner who is a General Surgeon can earn at least around Rs. 10,000/- per month but in his case, he would not be in a position to open a Nursing Home and perform operations even after retirement. The Tribunal calculated the financial loss per month at the rate of Rs. 300/- and calculated at that rate for a period of seven years. It was held that the appellant was entitled to Rs. 25,200/- for expected future loss and an amount of Rs. 4,800/- was added as compensation for pain and suffering and in this manner the appellant was awarded to total compensation of Rs. 30,000/-.
5. The learned Single Judge on the basis of the judgments cited before him held that compensation can be granted for loss of future earnings and it is also correct that in case of professionals, their loss must be computed, keeping in view their prospective loss of earnings but the compensation was not enhanced on the ground that he was fit enough to continue in service till his retirement and the loss of which he complained of, was with regard to his future earnings and that too after retirement which was 18 years away from him at the time of accident. It was further held that such a loss could not, but be taken to be too remote in the context of the circumstances of the claimant.
6. After going through records of the case, we are clearly of the view that the appellant would be by all means carry on the job of operations which related to Orthopaedic Surgery or General Surgery for at least a period of seven years after the retirement. Even if he was not to open a Nursing Home of his own, it had not been difficult for him as to secure a job in some private hospital or in a Nursing Home run by others with a kind of impediment he has now in which as per the medical opinion would continue for all times to come. It is obvious that he would not be able to perform operations like nerve suturninh. It requires to be mentioned here that the statement or the appellant that he is unable to perform delicate operations has remained totally unrebutted. However, inasmuch as he still able to perform operations. The expected loss of income after retirement would work out roughly to an extent of 1/3rd and even if he was to earn only Rs. 5,000/- per month which income can certainly be expected of the person of a calibre and stature of the appellant, the appellant would have suffered a loss of about Rs. 1500/- per month which comes to an annual loss of Rs. 18,000/- calculating the amount aforesaid for a period of seven years, the loss would run more than Rs. 1,00,000/-. All that the appellant is claiming in his application is only Rs. 1,00,000/-. He was certainly entitled to such a compensation which alone can, in our view, meet the ends of justice. This appeal is, thus, allowed and the award given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which was confirmed by the learned single Judge with little modification, referred to above, is modified. The appellant is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- with 12 per cent interest per annum form the date of filing the application before the motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the date of payment to him.
7. The appeal is, thus, accepted in the manner indicated above but there will be no order as to costs.