Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shivtej Singh vs Punjab Roadways And Ors. on 4 August, 1989
Equivalent citations: II(1990)ACC208, 1990ACJ956, (1990)98PLR599
JUDGMENT S.S. Sodhi, J.
1. The claim in appeal here Is for enhanced compensation. The claimant Shivtej Singh sustained serious injuries on his right leg which later led to the amputation thereof from above the knee, when his motor cycle was involved in an accident with the Punjab Roadways bus PUH-5647 coming from the opposite direction. This happened on the road between Samrala and Khamanon at about 11-30 A.M. on June 15, 1981. It was the finding of the Tribunal that the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. A sum of Rs. 40,000/- was awarded as compensation to Shiv Tej Singh.
2. A reference to the evidence on record would show that immediately after the occurrence, Shiv Tej Singh was removed to the Civil Hospital, Samrala from where he was referred to the Post Graduate Medical Institute, Chandigarh. It was there that his right leg was amputated. The claimant A. W.-1 - Shiv Tej Singh deposed that there is now only a stump of about eight inches left on his right leg.
3. The claimant remained admitted in the Post Graduate Medical Institute for almost a fortnight till June 29, 1981 and he was thereafter under the treatment of his local doctor besides following up his treatment at the Post Graduate Medical Institute, as an out door patient.
4. The medical evidence regarding the injuries suffered by the claimant consists of the statement of A.W. 7 Dr. Anand Parkash Arya, Senior Resident in the Department of Orthopaedics at the Post Graduate Medical Institute, Chandigarh. He deposed that as a result of the amputation of the right leg of the claimant, the permanent partial disability to the lower limb was 100 per cent while to the whole body it was 35 per cent.
5. The Claimant A.W.-1 Shiv Tej Singh also deposed to the expenses incurred by him on his treatment. According to him, he spent Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 9,000/- on his treatment at the Hospital in Chandigarh and his artificial leg cost him Rs. 1150/- He stated that he spent in ail, a sum of Rs. 16,000/- on the medical treatment and his artificial limb.
6. The next part of the evidence of the claimant which is relevant in determining the compensation payable to him is that be had been employed as sales representative of Messrs : Sherpur Allied Industries at Rs. 1000/- per month. The claimant's services were terminated after this accident as he was unable to work as Sales Representative which was a touring job. In other words, he also claimed compensation for loss of earnings.
7. As is well known there can be no precise treasure of compensation to be awarded in such cases. The guidelines are, however, provided in the observations made in P. S. Bhatnagar v. State of Punjab, (1977) 79 P. L. R. 300 where it was stated :--
"The broad general principle which should govern the assessment of damages in cases such as this is that the Tribunal should award to injured party such a sum of money as will put him in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the injuries The principle is sometimes referred to as the principle of restitution in integrum; but is manifest that no award of money can possibly compensate a man for such grievous injuries as the appellant in this case his suffered. The principle, therefore, affords a little guidance in the assessment of damages for the pain and suffering undergone and for the impairment which results from the injuries and in filing such damages the Judge can do no more than an endeavour to arrive at a fair estimate taking into account all the relevant conditions."
8. Another relevant guidelines is of course, provided by precedents of amounts awarded for similar injuries. In this behalf, counsel for the claimant adverved to New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charan Kaur and Ors., 1986 A. C. J. 243 where, for amputation of the right leg, above the knee, a sum of Rs. 50.000/- was awarded as compensation for pain and suffering, Hospitalization, loss of enjoyment of amenities of life and the inabity to lead a normal life. This clearly an apt precedent for the case in hand and a similar amount deserves to be awarded to the claimant here.
9. Besides this, there is the claim for the amount spent by the claimant on his medical treatment and the cost of artificial limb. The amount claimed, namely, Rs. 16,000/- can, by no means, be held to be either un-reasonable or in any manner exaggerated.
10. In dealing with this aspect of the matter, it is also to be borne in mind that this cost included the cost of his travelling from his place of residence to the Post Graduate Medical Institute, Chandigarh, for follow up treatment.
11. The next head of the claim is the loss of earning capacity caused by amputation of the right leg as also the cost that the claimant would now have to incur on his transportation in his normal life. There can be no manner of doubt that the loss of the right leg would indeed impair his earning capacity In the circumstances, it would be reasonable to assess his loss of earning capacity at Rs. 5,000/-per annum, with a multiplier of '16'. The amount so computed work out to Rs. 80,000/-. Besides this, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- deserves to be awarded to the claimants to yards his cost of transportation.
12. The compensation payable to the claimant is accordingly hereby enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000/- which, he shall be entitled to alongwith interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application to the date of the payment of the amount awarded This appeal is accordingly hereby accepted with costs Counsel fee Rs. 500/-.