- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ebrahim Fakir Ansari v. Sitaram Kamalaksha Kamat And Another
Concise Analytical Summary of the Opinion (Sugla, J.)
Factual and Procedural Background
The applicant (the original applicant in the tribunal) was injured in a motor accident on 29 August 1984 when he was hit on his left leg. He underwent two operations, remained in plaster for about a year and was on leave for 8 months and 7 days. A medical certificate dated 25 March 1986 by Dr. H.R. Jhunjhunwala estimated permanent disability at about 30 per cent.
The learned Member of the tribunal found the driver negligent and liable to pay compensation. The applicant had claimed Rs. 1,00,000/-, but the learned Member awarded Rs. 60,504/-. The award was computed (noted as six heads although effectively five) as follows: Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 5,000 for pain and suffering and loss of comfort; Rs. 4,000 for special diet; Rs. 28,304 for loss of earnings for the period of leave; Rs. 200 for taxi fares; and Rs. 3,000 for a likely future operation to remove a plate.
The applicant appealed only challenging the amounts awarded for special diet and for pain, suffering and loss of amenities, and seeking compensation for likely loss of future income due to loss of earning capacity; he did not contest the awards of Rs. 28,304, Rs. 200 and Rs. 3,000.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the reduction of the claimed special diet expenditure (claimed as Rs. 10 per day over two years, ≈ Rs. 7,000) to Rs. 4,000 by the learned Member was justified.
- Whether the total award of Rs. 25,000 for pain, suffering and consequent loss of comfort and amenities (Rs. 20,000 + Rs. 5,000) was inadequate and required enhancement in light of comparable decisions.
- Whether compensation should have been awarded for loss of future income due to diminished earning capacity allegedly caused by a permanent disability (claimed as 30% by a medical certificate).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments (Mr. A. R. Kudrolli)
- The learned Member erred in reducing the special diet claim from an implied Rs. 7,000 (Rs. 10/day for two years) to Rs. 4,000 without material basis.
- The awarded Rs. 25,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenities was too meagre and should be substantially larger; reliance placed on several High Court decisions where comparable or lesser injuries attracted similar or higher awards.
- The applicant suffered a permanent disability of 30% (per Dr. Jhunjhunwala) which would impair his capacity to earn after retirement; adopting assumptions about future earnings and pension, the appellant claimed a substantial lump-sum (originally estimating about Rs. 70,000, but restricting his claim to Rs. 30,000–35,000).
Respondent's Arguments (Mr. Kamat)
- Supported the learned Member's award for pain and suffering as reasonable and relied on several High Court decisions (Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan) to demonstrate that the amount awarded in this case was within the range adopted by courts in analogous matters.
- Implicitly opposed enhancement of awards and the claim for future loss of earning capacity on the available evidence.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Niranjan Ambalal Patel, 1981 ACJ 53 (Gujarat) | Cited by counsel to show awards (e.g., Rs. 22,500) made in cases of injuries that, counsel contended, were not as grave as in the present case. | The court reviewed the decision but noted variability in facts (age, nature of injury). It considered the decision but did not treat it as decisive to increase the award in the present case. |
| State of Gujarat v. Dushyantbhai Nagiibhai Patel, 1984 ACJ 560 (Gujarat) | Cited by both sides as a comparative authority on quantum for pain and suffering. | The court noted the citation and treated it as one of several comparative authorities; differences in facts (e.g., age, injuries) meant it did not justify disturbing the tribunal's award here. |
| M.P. State Road Transport Corpn. v. Kishanlal Suri, 1987 ACJ 519 (MP) | Cited by respondent to show an award of Rs. 20,000 (with additional amounts in that case for loss of amenities noted by appellant). | The court acknowledged the decision and the appellant's reply about additional amounts in that case, and concluded that the comparison did not make the tribunal's award unreasonable. |
| Darshani Devi v. Sheo Ram, 1987 ACJ 931 (Rajasthan) | Cited to show a case with fracture of both legs where Rs. 40,000/- was awarded. | The court observed that severity in that case (both legs fractured) differed from the present facts and therefore the comparison did not require interference with the award made by the learned Member. |
| Swatantra Kumar Lamba v. Sheila Didi, 1988 ACJ 74 (P&H) | Cited by appellant as a case where 20% disability attracted an award of Rs. 40,000/-. | The court considered the decision but, taking an overall view of the present case (age, nature of work, continuity in employment up to retirement), held the precedent did not compel enhancement of the award. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court proceeded head-by-head in assessing the points of challenge and applied the evidentiary standard and comparative reasoning as follows:
- Special diet: The appellant's claim rested on a bald statement that he spent Rs. 10 per day for two years (≈ Rs. 7,000). The court found no supporting evidence about the requirement or nature of any special diet or corroboration of the expense. Given the lack of evidence, the learned Member's factual estimate of Rs. 4,000 for special diet was considered reasonable and not open to interference.
- Future loss of earning capacity: The court examined the medical certificate (Exh. 19) and the doctor's testimony. Dr. Jhunjhunwala had estimated 30% permanent disability but conceded on cross-examination that he had not taken X-rays and that the estimate was based on reports and clinical examination; he described the estimate as conjectural and stated the disability could be 20% or more. The court emphasized that not every disability necessarily impairs earning capacity and that no material was placed on record to show that the applicant’s disability would affect his earning capacity, particularly given the nature of his work (apparently table/office work) and the fact that he had continued in employment up to retirement without detriment. The burden lay on the applicant to produce cogent evidence linking disability to reduced future earnings. In the absence of such material, the court rejected the appellant's claim for future loss of income.
- Pain, suffering and loss of amenities: The court acknowledged that there is no rigid formula for quantifying compensation for pain and suffering; relevant factors include age, vocation, severity of injury, and other circumstantial considerations. The court compared the instant facts with cited authorities, noting differences — especially that many cited cases involved younger claimants (ages 15–30) or more severe injuries (e.g., both legs fractured). Given the applicant’s age (50), continuing employment until retirement, and the nature of the disability (one leg somewhat rigid but not shown to impede foreseeable work), the court found the tribunal’s combined award of Rs. 25,000 for pain and suffering and loss of amenities to be reasonable.
Overall, the court took an evidentiary and comparative approach: it assessed the documentary and oral evidence (including cross-examination of the medical witness), required a causal link between disability and diminished earning capacity to support claims for future loss, and treated comparative authorities as illustrative rather than binding mandates requiring disturbance of the tribunal’s discretion.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The court DISMISSED THE APPEAL.
Direct implications:
- The award of the tribunal (total Rs. 60,504/- apportioned as described by the learned Member) stands unchanged.
- The specific challenges to the awards for special diet and for pain, suffering and loss of amenities were rejected; the claim for compensation for loss of future earning capacity was also rejected for lack of cogent evidence linking the disability to reduced future earnings.
- No order as to costs was made by the court.
Broader implications: The opinion does not articulate or create any new legal principle; it reiterates established approaches — requiring cogent evidence for future loss claims, treating comparative case law as context-sensitive, and exercising deference to reasonable factual estimates by the tribunal. No new precedent was set by this decision.
Sugla, J.:— The appellant herein is the original applicant. In a motor accident which took place on 29th August, 1984, the applicant sustained injuries. He was hit on his left leg and sustained serious injuries. He had to be operated twice and was under plaster for about a year. He had to be on leave for 8 months and 7 days. Dr. H.R Jhunjhunwala, whose certificate dated 25th March, 1986 was obtained and produced, estimated his permanent disability at about 30 per cent.
2. The learned Member found the driver of the vehicle to be negligent and accordingly liable to pay compensation to the applicant. However, as against the claim of the applicant for Rs. 1,00,000/-, the learned Member allowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 60,504/-. Being not satisfied with the amount of compensation, the applicant has come in appeal. The amount of compensation was computed by the learned Member under six heads though they actually would constitute five heads. Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- were awarded in respect of pain and suffering and consequent loss of comfort on account of injuries sustained by the applicant; Rs. 4,000/- was the amount estimated to have been spent by the applicant over the period of two years on special diet. A sum of Rs. 28,304/- was determined as the amount of compensation for loss of earnings as a result of his being on leave for a period of 8 months and 7 days. Rs. 200/- was the amount stated to have been spent by the applicant towards taxi fare and Rs. 3,000/- was the amount awarded for another operation which was likely to be performed on the applicant for taking out the plate inserted in his left leg.
3. Mr. Kudrolli, the learned counsel for the appellant, has not challenged before us the determination of the amounts under item Nos. 3, 4 and 5 at Rs. 28,304/-, Rs. 200/- and Rs. 3,000/- respectively. He has challenged the determination of amount of compensation in respect of special diet, pain and suffering and consequent loss of comfort and amenities and against non-awarding of any compensation in respect of likely loss of future income as a result of loss of earning capacity.
4. As regards the first item, Mr. Kudrolli took us through para 9 of the judgment to show that the applicant had made a statement that he had spent Rs. 10/- per day as expenditure on special diet over a period of two years. Such an expenditure, thus, amounted to about Rs. 7,000/-. It was argued that the learned Member had no material whatsoever for not accepting the claim and reducing the amount of expenditure from Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 4,000/-. We have carefully gone through para 9 of the judgment. It is seen that except for a bald statement that the applicant had to spend Rs. 10/- per day on special diet for a period of two years, no evidence whatsoever was produced as regards requirement of the special diet and the likely expenditure on the special diet if that was necessary. In that view of the matter, the estimate of expenditure on the so-called special diet at Rs. 4,000/- by the learned Member is, to say the least, quite reasonable and certainly does not call for interference.
5. As regards the loss in capacity to earn income after retirement, Mr. Kudrolli stated that the lifespan of a person in these days can be and should be taken at about 70 years. The applicant, at the time of accident, was 50 years of age. Fairly admitting that the applicant was allowed to continue in his existing post by his employers without any detriment whatsoever in career prospects, Mr. A.R Kudrolli stated that it would not be so after the applicant retired and would be taking up some other vocation. After all in the present-day situation a person is supposed to earn even after retirement. The doctor's certificate to the effect that he had a permanent disability to the extent of 30 per cent would, according to Mr. Kudrolli, certainly come in his way of earning after the retirement. His claim in this regard is that assuming the applicant would be earning a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month at the time of his retirement and would be entitled to a pension at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month, he would atleast be expected to earn about Rs. 1,800/- to Rs. 2,000/- per month. If 30 per cent permanent disability is taken into account, he will run the risk of proportionate reduction in income. So estimated, this would come to about Rs. 70,000/-. The amount being paid in lump, he was restricting his claim to rupees 30 to 35 thousand only.
6. We have seen the certificate Exh. 19, issued by Dr. Jhunjhunwala. We have also gone through his evidence at pages 43 and 44 of the paperbook. It is pertinent to mention that the applicant was treated by other eminent doctors throughout the period of his treatment. For reasons best known to him, he obtained a certificate from Dr. Jhunjhunwala. No doubt Dr. Jhunjhunwala estimated the permanent disability at 30 percent. However, when he was cross-examined, he fairly stated that he had not taken even the X-rays of the patient and that the certificate was given on the basis of other reports shown to him and the clinical examination when the patient visited him. He made it clear that the estimate of permanent disability was a conjecture and the disability could as well be 20 per cent or more. Apart from the fact that the learned Member had rightly observed that on the basis of this certificate and the evidence of the doctor it was not possible to accept as a fact that the applicant was really suffering from any permanent disability to the extent of 30 per cent or near about, we have found no material on record to even remotely suggest that such a disability would have affected or was likely to affect the earning capacity of the applicant After all every disability cannot affect the earning capacity of a person. For instance, a minor injury in the leg may be vital for a football or a hockey player, for an engineer or a mechanic or a driver. It may not be so for an officer who does table work. In the present case, what has been shown to us is this that one leg of the applicant has become somewhat rigid, i.e, it is not as flexible as it should be. For the nature of work that the applicant is doing or he is likely to do after retirement, whether such a disability would really affect, or can affect his earning capacity is very doubtful. In any event, it was for the applicant to show by some cogent evidence that it would be so. In the absence of any material, we are not able to persuade ourselves to agree with Mr. Kudrolli that the injury sustained by the applicant had incapacitated him to the extent of 30 per cent if he ventured to take up some work after retirement. This contention is, therefore, also rejected.
7. Next contention of Mr. Kudrolli is about the amount of compensation on account of pain and suffering and consequent loss of comfort and amenities on account of the injuries sustained by the applicant including the fracture. Though a sum of Rs. 20,000/- has been awarded by the learned Member under this head, we find that a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded by the learned Member in respect of more or less the same discomfort. Thus, it has to be considered that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded by the learned Member on account of pain and suffering etc. by the applicant as a result of accident. It was the case of Mr. Kudrolli that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the learned Member was too meagre and a bigger amount should have been awarded. In support of his claim, he placed reliance on two Gujarat High Court decisions in the cases of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Niranjan Ambalal Patel, 1981 ACJ 53 (Gujarat) and State of Gujarat v. Dushyantbhai Nagiibhai Patel, 1984 ACJ 560 (Gujarat), for the purpose of showing that in those cases the injury was not so grave and yet the amount of compensation awarded was Rs. 22,500/-. Mr. Kamat, the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, relied upon the aforesaid Gujarat High Court decision in State of Gujarat v. Dushyantbhai Nagjibhai Patel, 1984 ACJ 560 (Gujarat), as well as a Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of M.P State Road Ibans. Corpn. v. Kishanial Suri, 1987 ACJ 519 (MP), where a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was awarded. He also placed reliance on a decision in Darshani Devi v. Sheo Ram, 1987 ACJ 931 (Rajasthan), where there was a fracture of both the legs and an amount of Rs. 40,000/- was awarded. All this was to show that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded in this case was reasonable and should not be interfered with. In reply, Mr. Kudrolli stated that so far as Madhya Pradesh High Court decision is concerned, a further sum of Rs. 12,400/- was awarded in that case towards loss of amenities and thus the amount awarded was Rs. 32,400/- and not Rs. 20,000/-. He also placed reliance on a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in the case of Swatantra Kumar Lamba v. Sheila Didi, 1988 ACJ 74 (P&H), where disability was estimated at 20 per cent and the amount awarded was Rs. 40,000/-.
8. We have already referred to the facts of this case above. We have been taken through all these decisions by the learned counsel on both the sides. There cannot certainly be any hard and fast rule as to how the amount of compensation for loss of amenities, for suffering, pain and discomfort etc. is required to be awarded. One has to take an overall view of the matter. For instance, the age of the person injured is one relevant factor. The nature of his vocation may be another relevant factor. There might be many more relevant factors. What we have to consider in this case is that the age of the applicant at the time of accident was 50 and he was allowed to continue in his job up to the age of retirement without suffering any loss in position or prospects. Whether one would like to work after the age of retirement or not is a matter of conjecture. Assuming in the present case one would like to work, the nature of disability from which the applicant is suffering is not likely to come in his way of earning. In any event, as stated earlier by us, there is no material before us in that regard. The ages of the injured persons in the cases cited vary from 15 to 30. In some cases both the legs were fractured. Taking an overall view of the matter, we do not find anything wrong with the estimate of compensation awarded by the learned Member on this count at Rs. 25,000/-. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
9. Appeal dismissed.
Alert