Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(ii) (A) Bodily injuries which have resulted in permanent physical disabilities;

B) Bodily injuries which have not resulted in permanent physical disabilities;

17. We may advert to the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R. M. K. Veluswami, AIR 1962 SC 1, wherein their Lordships have laid down that the maxim of res ipsa loquitur would be applicable where the cause of the accident cannot be ascertained and the circumstances are consistent with the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver. Their Lordships relied on the case of Barkway v. South Wales Transport Co. Ltd., 1948-2 All ER 460. In the case before their Lordships the accident did not take place on the main road, but on the off-side uprooting a stone and breaking it and dashing against a tamarind tree 25' away from the said stone with such a velocity that its dark was peeled of and the bus could stop only after travelling some more distance from the said tree. Their Lordships held that the events that took place told their own story and, therefore, the presumption was attracted that the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver.

Of course the loss of probable benefit that the child might have been able to render, may be in the region of conjecture which before achievement would be qualified by many ifs and buts. But we are of opinion that some nominal damages ought to be awarded even in the case of death of a young child. The trend of English decisions has been to award such nominal damages ranging anywhere between £100 to 500. As regards the non-earning members of the family, the damages to be awarded in the case of injuries resulting in permanent physical disabilities, ought to be based on the consideration so as to set off the disability suffered for the rest of the life. As regards the other injuries not resulting in permanent physical disability, we are of the opinion that lesser damages commen-surate with injuries and suffering might be awarded in suitable cases. Having thus stated the general principles relating to assessment of compensation applicable to different sets of cases in the present appeals, we proceed to consider each individual case according to its grouping, as suggested by us earlier in paragraph 1 of this judgment.

22. As regards Vasudeo Vyas, it is true that his condition in the hospital was serious for about two months, but in comparison with Sudhakar Kotasthane, he received less severe injuries. Mprever, there was no loss of any near relation due to death in the accident. The learned Judge awarded him a round figure of Rs. 15000. We may observe that the period of his illness was certainly longer, namely, six months. The learned Judge also observed that his life has not been shortened, nor he in any way suffered in Ms service condition, nor has any physical disability been caused to him. In fact, there being little difference between the case of Vasudeo Vyas and Sudhakar Kotas-thane so far as the bodily injuries are concerned, we are unable to subscribe to the view that Vasudeo Vyas was entitled to more damages than Sudhakar Kotasthane. On the other hand, Sudhakar has had to suffer more physically and mentally. Under these circumstances, we are of opinion that the damages to be awarded to Vasudeo Vyas should be Rs. 10,000/- in round figures.

2-- She had pain in the chest. X-ray confirmed fracture in the first rib;

3--She had pain in the spina. X-ray did not reveal any injury;

Dr. Rana issued certificate Ex. P-A-1, She was admitted as an indoor patient in private ward of the M. Y. Government Hospital, Indore. She was put in plaster up to 15-6-1962. She was also operated upon after removing the plaster.

As such, she had to be a patient almost for one year. She was asked to have rest in bed and to have exercise of the toe. She was unable to perform her daily routine. She was actually discharged from the hospital on 3-8-1961. But again she was admitted on 12-2-1962 and was discharged on 4-3-1962. On her second stay in the hospital, Dr. V. S. Pooran and Dr. V. K. Paha-ria had treated her. She was X-rayed. Dr. Rana had last examined her on 14-9-1962. She was allowed to walk without plaster with the help of crutches. Before that she was in the condition of total disablement. In September, 1962, there was swelling in the whole leg and below the knee due to the late effect of plaster, stiffness of the ankle joint, dorsification of the ankle. Dr. Rana also stated that at the moment she could walk with the help of a stick. She could never be restored to her normal health as she enjoyed before the accident. The disability would permanently affect her gait of walking. The defect of the clawing of the toes and the stiffness of the joint might be removed in due course of time, but she would never be able to walk briskly. Thus, the medical evidence discloses a permanent physical disability caused to her on account of the accident.