Punjab-Haryana High Court
Santokh Singh vs Ajay Diwan And Ors. on 18 July, 1986
Equivalent citations: I(1987)ACC214
JUDGMENT S.S. Sodhi, J.
1. The claim in appeal here is for enhanced compensation. The claimant Santokh Singh sustained serious injuries when while driving his motor-cycle he was involved in an accident with the car PUL-9812. This happened on November 1, 1977 at about 9 p.m. on the Ludhiana-Phagwara Road. It was the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had been caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the car-driver. A sum of Rs. 38,500/- was awarded as compensation to Santokh Singh for the injuries suffered by him.
2. A reference to the evidence on record would show that the injuries suffered by the claimant Santokh Singh, in this accident, were indeed serious and they have had disastrous effects upon him. A.W. 1 Dr. T.N. Shadkangi Assistant Professor in the Department of Neuro-surgery at the Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, deposed that at the time of the admission of Santokh Singh in the hospital on November 2, 1977, he was semi-conscious and had high fever up to 104/105 degree. Emergency Tracheostomy as also multiple burrhollic Exploration was done. The brain was oedematous and the C.S.F. was under tension. The diagonisis disclosed that it was a closed head injury with cerebral contusion and mid-brain injury. This injury was declared to be dangerous to life.
3. The claimant Santokh Singh remained admitted in the hospital at Ludhiana from November 2, 1977 to January 25,1978. According to Dr. T.N. Shadkangi he was discharged with three neurological deficiencies there heing:
1. Left hemiparesis.
2. Disphonia and slow speech.
3. Impairment of higher functions.
Santokh Singh was examined by Dr. Shadkangi on the day of his discharge. The doctor opined that the patient would need Physio and occupational therapy for an indefinite period. His recovery would be slow and at that time it could not be said whether or not he would ever recover completely.
4. Santokh Singh was next examined by Dr. Shadkangi on January 16, 1979 when he found that his condition was improving, but he could not say even then whether he could recover completely. The physical incapacity of Santokh Singh was put as 10 to 20 per cent and his menial deficiency at 50 per cent. The doctor also proved the certificates Exhibit A/1 and A/2 of January 9, 1978 and January 25, 1978 issued in respect of the claimant by Dr. S. Ramanathan. These certificates being in terms of the testimony of Dr. Shadkangi.
5. Next to note is the testimony of A.W. 7 Harpal Kaur wife of the claimant Santokh Singh who deposed that Santokh Singh was no longer capable of doing any work and he could not even make any statement.
6. When the matter came up in appeal, with the agreement of the parties, the claimant was referred for medical examination to Dr. I.C. Pathak, former Director of the Post Graduate Medical Institute, Chandigarh, with the specific direction that Dr. Pathak could, for this purpose, associate any one or more doctors of his choice as he may deem appropriate. The claimant was thereafter examined by Dr. Pathak and also by Dr. D.R. Gulati, former Professor and Head of the Department of Neuro-Surgery at the Post Graduate Medical Institute, Chandigarh. Dr. Dwarka Pershad Assistant Professor of Psychology at the same Institute and Dr. Kasturi Lal Garg, a practicing Neuro-Psychiatrist at Chandigarh.
7. A reading of the report of Dr. Pathak, which has been placed on record shows that on physical examination, Santokh Singh claimant showed residual left hemiparesis in the left upper extremity. This impairment was, however, described as being so minor that it did not interfere with the daily tasks of living or physical work. In the assessment of his mental function, however, the examination revealed disturbances of hearing, smelling as well as of diplopia (double vision). These were, however, described as subjective responses and it was stated that it was difficult to establish whether the patient actually suffered from these disabilities. Some element of Malingering on the part of the claimant could not be ruled out with any certainity, it was said.
8. Dr. Dwarka Pershad on carrying out WAIS and Bhatia tests found a verbal & Performance IQ of 61. It was recorded that persons with such an IQ are able to do physical work like that of physical labour or simple tasks not involving planning of difficult tasks as handling a business.
9. Dr. Kasturi Lal Garg made a diagnosis of reactive depression, that is, the mental depression as a reaction to his illness. The report concludes :
Considering that S. Santokh Singh had a severe brain injury (as is evident from the injury report and medical report from the CHC) and the slight dilation of ventricular system as seen in the C.T. scan of the skull, some disturbances of cognitive function is expected. After such an injury usually, there is lack of ability to plan and execute difficult tasks.
10. According to the date published by the American Medical Association in the evaluation of Permanent impairment, S. Santokh Singh has a physical diability between 5-20 percent and impairment of brain function of about 20 percent.
11. This interpretation in our opinion should be considered in the light of the fact that the disturbances of hearing, loss of unilateral vibration sense and loss of memory and diplopia, as well as the reports of verbal and performance IQ elicited are dependent on the subjective responses of the person on whom these tests are conducted and may not therefore be indicative of an organic damage or defect.
12. Such being the physical and mental state of Santokh Singh, the next point to consider here is the effect his injuries have had on his daily life and his earning capacity. In this respect, as mentioned earlier, there is the statement of his wife A.W. 7 - Harpal Kaur that he was not now capable of doing any work and could not even make any statement. Unfortunately the claimant did not choose to appear in the witness box to enable the Court to see for itself his state and condition.
13 As regards the income and the earning capacity of the claimant, according to Harpal Kaur, Santokh Singh was a partner in a contractor's firm and his salary as a working partner was Rs. 2,000/- per month. A.W. 6 Baldev Singh Accountant of the firm deposed that Santokh Singh had 50 per cent share in M/s Mohan Singh Shambhi & Sons. The firm, he deposed, had assets worth 17-1/2 lacs though he added that there was a dispute with regard to 15-1/2 lacs. He did not, however, care to spell out the nature of this dispute and who were the parties to it. He too deposed that Rs. 2000/- per month used to be paid as salary to Santokh Singh. Santokh Singh, he stated, was now no longer doing any work and the firm is also not doing any business as Santokh Singh cannot look after the work. In dealing with the testimony of this witness, it would be pertinent to note that he admitted that Santokh Singh was an income-tax assessee, but significantly, he did not place on record any assessment order to denote the income of Santokh Singh as determined by the Income-tax Authorities. There is indeed no explanation to account for this either. This does indeed warrant an adverse inference against the claimant.
14. The other aspect of relevance here is with regard to the cost of the medical treatment actually incurred and that which can be reasonably expected to be incurred by the claimant on account of his injuries in future too. Reference to the evidence on record would show that the claimant spent about three months in the hospital. The actual medical expenses as paid to the hospital were over Rs. 5,800/-. This was deposed to by A.W. 2-D.A. Longwellow. Besides this, a claim was also put-forth for the services of an attendant in the hospital during this period and conveyance charges for the wife of the claimant and his children for corning from Phillsar to Ludhiana to visit and look after him while he was admitted in the hospital there. Besides this, compensation for special diet of the claimant, during this period, was also sought. Evidence was no doubt led with regard to visits to the hospital by taxi and also of persons who claim to be attendants with a view to show the emoluments received by them for their services. Exaggeration in these matters is clearly writ large. Having regard, however, to the financial and social status of the claimant, the nature of the injuries suferred by him and to his circumstances generally while in hospital, it would be fair and just to assess the expenses for special diet, attendants and conveyance during the period of hospitalization at Rs. 5,000/-. Besides this, he must also be held entitled to the expenses actually incurred on his medical treatment, that is, hospitalization, medicines and doctors' fees. To this deserves to be added the cost of the Medical Board constituted to examine the claimant in this Court. These expenses were over Rs. 3,000/-. Under these heads, therefore, compensation may be assessed at Rs. 10,000/-. A similar amount deserves to be awarded to the claimant in respect of his estimated medical expenses for his continuing treatment too.
15. The main head for the award of damages here would come under, what is known as general damages, that is, compensation for pain and suffering caused to the claimant by the injuries suffered. Loss of enjoyment of amenities of life and the disabilities caused to him thereby which, as has been shown, would adversely affect his earning capacity too. There can, of course, be no precise or definite measure for compensation to be awarded under these heads. Taking, however, an over-all view of the circumstances and the situation of the claimant, in the light of the matters earlier discussed and also in the context of the nature and extent of the injuries suffered and the disabilities caused to him thereby and the estimated loss of income, compensation under these heads deserves to be assessed at Rs. 1,75,000/-. The total compensation thus payable to the claimant would work out to Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. two lacks only). Compensation payable to him is ace ordingly enhanced to this extent.
16. The claimant shall be entitled to the compensation awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent par annum from the date of the application to the date of the payment of the amount awarded.
17. The respondents shall be jointly and severally liable for the compensation awarded. This appeal is accordingly hereby accepted with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500/-.