Sukhdev Singh v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Patiala .

Sarkaria, J.:— This first appeal is directed against an order, dated 19th May, 1964, of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, by which he partly disallowed the claim of the appellant. It arises out of the following facts:—

2. On 28th May, 1963, Sukhdev Singh appellant, a young man of 28 years, was going to village Rurki on his bicycle. Jagrup Singh and Sher Singh Mistries were accompanying him on their bicycles. Bus No. 5798 belonging to the Pepsu Road Transport, Corporation, driven at a fast speed by Kundan Singh, came from behind and knocked down Sukhdev Singh. The bus dragged and carried away the victim along with his bicycle 60 feet ahead from the scene of the accident before stopping. Sukhdev Singh received grievous injuries all over the body, including right side of forehead, right thigh, left leg, left hand, right hand, left side of the abdomen, right side of nose and right cheek. He became unconscious. The driver of the offending bus escaped. The conductor stayed behind. Another bus arrived on the scene. Pandit Laxmi Chand and Arjan Singh Mistry removed the injured to Rajendra Hospital, Patiala, Jagrup Singh lodged the First Information Report, Exhibit A.W 2/1, with the Police. Owing to brain damage, Sukhdev Singh became completely paralysed. To release pressure in brain, Sukhdev Singh was operated upon on 13th June, 1963. This only resulted in slight improvement. Thereafter, he was removed to the Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh, where he remained under the treatment of Dr. Gulati till 27th August, 1963. He was re-admitted to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, on 28th August, 1963. As there was difficulty in breathing, tracheotomy had to be performed on 31st August, 1963. The injured continued to be unconscious or semi-conscious. The head-injury, according to the opinion of Dr. G.S Sekhon, has caused permanent disability to the injured who will remain bed-ridden and will not be able to move about or pvrsue any kind of avocation for the rest of his life. On the other hand, there was every apprehension of his condition taking a fatal turn.

3. Surjit Kaur, wife of Sukhdev Singh injured, made an application on the latter's behalf claiming Rs. 50,000/- as compensation against the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation. After recording the evidence produced by the parties, the Tribunal found that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver belonging to the aforesaid Corporation. It was further held that Surjit Kaur wife of Sukhdev Singh injured was competent to file the claim-application on behalf of her injured husband. In the result, he has awarded Rs. 10,000/- only as compensation to the injured. Hence this appeal by the claimant.

4. No cross-appeal has been filed by the respondent to challenge the findings of the Tribunal that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver. Thus the only question for determination before me, is, whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the injured is adequate. Before dealing with this point, it will be proper to mention here that in this Court, the appellant had moved an application under Order 41, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code, for permission to produce additional evidence to show that after his discharge from the Hospital, also, the injured continues to be bed-ridden, incapacitated and semiconscious, entailing a recurring expenditure of more than Rs. 140/- per month for his nursing and treatment. This application was strenuously opposed by the respondent. I have disallowed it per separate order of date, which may be read as a part of this order.

5. It will be useful to notice, at the outset, how the learned Tribunal has assessed the compensation. He has accepted the evidence of Dr. Gurmukh Singh Sekhon, A.W 1 that the head-injury has caused permanent disability to the injured, who would remain bed-ridden, unable to pursue any kind of avocation for the rest of his life, and that it was feared that the condition of the injured might take a fatal turn, after finding that the incapacity caused to the injured was 100 per cent, the Tribunal proceeds to discuss the evidence and record its findings with regard to the position and station in life of the injured and his income, as follows:—

“A.W 6 Shri Gurdev Singh, brother of the injured, has stated that he was Sarpanch and a Member of the Block Samiti which fact remains unchallenged. He along with Sukhdev Singh and younger brother cultivated jointly and their annunl income was Rs. 6000/- to Rs. 7000/-. The injured was a very good farmer, but on account of this accident they had two labourers who worked in his place and they are paying Rs. 150/- per month to them. He owned 50 Bighas of land along with his two brothers and 130 Bighas of land belonged to their father. A.W 7 is Shrimati Surjit Kaur, wife of the injured. She deposed that he used to earn Rs. 300/-. Her eldest son, Gurnam Singh, is aged 6–7 years and her daughter Baljit Kaur, is aged 3 years. Besides, she has another daughter aged 3 months only………

There is no evidence in rebuttal to the evidence of these witnesses. From the evidence of the Doctor and other witnesses, it is clear that Shri Sukhdev Singh has become a total wreck and would remain bed-ridden for the rest of his life and will have to undergo a lot of suffering from the prime of his youth now onwards. As regards his income, although it has not been challenged by any evidence from the respondent's side, but even then, in absence of any documentary evidence to substantiate the figure of Rs. 300/- per month, I reduce it to Rs. 150/- per month as his assessed income………In the present circumstances, he (injured) cannot earn anything. On the other hand, he is a burden to his family who will have to undergo a lot of expense on his treatment.

………I have to assess his compensation on the basis of the actual loss suffered by him. It is on record that the 3 brothers including injured, had joint cultivation and had to engage two labourers after the accident and out of Rs. 150/- paid monthly by them to these labourers his share would come to Rs. 50/- which he has to pay as he is no longer able to lend a helping hand. Rs. 50/- is the loss to be suffered by him. I, therefore, work out his compensation on the basis of his loss at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month for 15 years, and the compensation word work out to………Rs. 9,000/-. Apart from the above, I assess Rs. 4,000/- for his suffering, pain, the medical expenses to be met and also considering the aspect that he would no longer be able to enjoy the life of a normal person. The total compensation would come to Rs. 13,000/-, but as he is to be paid in a lump sum, I reduce the amount to Rs. 10,000/-, and in my opinion, it would meet the ends of justice.”

6. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the manner in which the Tribunal has assessed the damages in this case, is most arbitrary, perverse and repugnant to all accepted notions of justice. It is emphasised that in the absence of any evidence led by the respondent to rebut the statements of A.Ws, Gurdev Singh and Surjit Kaur, the Tribunal could not, merely on fanciful grounds, arbitrarily cut down the monthly income of the injured as vouchsafed by the witnesses, from Rs. 300/- per month to Rs. 150/- per month. This arbitrariness, proceeds the argument, was accentuated into sheer perversity when the learned Tribunal instead of adding the monthly expenses for engaging two labourers at Rs. 150/- per month plus boarding expenses, to the figure of the monthly income of 150/- assessed by him, first offset the same against the monthly wages of the two workmen, bringing his income to the minus side, and then added Rs. 50/- what he thought, according to his strange logic, was one-third of the wages of the two labourers engaged in place of the injured. Counsel has further argued that the learned Tribunal has acted in a most arbitrary and unfair manner in estimating that normally the deceased would have lived for 15 years more up to the age of 43. It is maintained that the average life-span of an Indian in these days, according to authorities is 70 years. In support of this contention, counsel has referred to Shiv Prasad Gupta v. S.M Sabir Zaidi,1 and Mrs. Savitri Devi v. The Malerkotla Bus Service (P) Ltd., . 1969 71 P.L.R 306.. With regard to the method and measure of awarding compensation, counsel has referred to several other authorities, which I shall presently notice. At this place, it would suffice to say that there is a good deal of force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant.

7. There is no dispute whatsoever that the injuries sustained by the appellant have totally incapacitated him for life. The accident has left him to take out a miserable and precarious vegetative existance. Instead of being a support and an earning member of the family, he would be a hurden and liability to them, bringing in its wake endless gloom, mental torture and suffering to his wife and children. In actual practice, it sometimes become extremely difficult to assess the pecuniary loss suffered by such an injured, because so many factors are involved and some of them must be matters of speculation. This is particularly true where the damages for loss of prospective earnings are to be assessed. The heads of damages which defy precise measurement in terms of money are loss of limb, loss of sense, loss of expectation of life, etc. That is why the Courts have said that the injured person should be awarded what may be a reasonable reparation for the wrong done to him. Well then, what will be reasonable compensation? Answer to this question will again depend upon the circumstances of each case. In the words of Kemp and Kemp (See the Quantum of Damages, Second Addition, Volume I, page 5), “what is a reasonable sum for any one of the innumerable items of damages which do not admit of arithmetical calculation can only be assessed in the light of previous awards made by the courts in comparable cases.” The learned authors have further summarised the correct approach to the assessment of damages in personal injury claims as follows:—

“1. In so far as the injury results in actual pecuniary loss, past or prospective, the plaintiff should be awarded full compensation for that loss; but that does not mean that in the case of loss of prospective earnings the plaintiff is to be awarded his annual earnings multiplied by the number of years for which he could be expected to have worked, if he had not been injured. A simple calculation of the sort ignores many contingencies which would or might operate to reduce the plaintiff's future earnings and so would mean that the plaintiff would get more than full compensation for his loss. In the words of Lord Reid in B.T.C v. Gourlay, (1956) A.C 185 at page 212, the court's task is to give “the present value of prospective loss”. In so far as the injury results in damage which does not admit of assessment by arithmetical calculation, the plaintiff should be awarded fair and reasonable compensation, such compensation to be assessed in the light of the previous awards in respect of comparable damage.”

8. Principle number 1, in its application, has to be adapted to the conditions and realities of life in this country. It will be useful to recall the observations of Hegde, C.J of the High Court of Delhi in Union of India v. Viranwali . 1967 A.C.J 41., that the benefit of getting a lump-sum payment was offset by the increase in prices and the progressive decrease in the value of the rupee. In Shiv Prasad Gupta's case, ibid a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the average life-span of an Indian can safely be assessed at 70 years. This view was followed recently by H.R Sodhi, J. in Mrs. Savitri Devi's case, ibid.

9. The injured was a healthy and sturdy villager of 28 years, whose father and brothers are alive and healthy. He, therefore, reasonably expected to live up to the age of 70 years. There was no warrant whatever for holding that the deceased could not live for more than 15 years even if he had not sustained the injuries. According to the evidence of Gurdev Singh, A.W 6, before the accident in question, the three brothers, including Sukhdev Singh injured and the witness, used to till their 50 Bighas of agricultural land jointly. They used to cultivate it with their own hands. The injured was a good farmer. After the accident, they had to engage two servants on a monthly pay of Rs. 150/- plus boarding expenses to work in place of Sukhdev Singh injured. There is nothing on the record to suggest that even before the accident, they used to engage any labourers or servants. Gurdev Singh, A.W 6, also testified that from the joint cultivation they used to earn from Rs. 6000/- to Rs. 7000/- annually. That is to say, the annual income which Sukhdev Singh injured used to derive by self-cultivating the land, was Rs. 2000/- per annum, which would roughly come to Rs. 170/- per month. That would be his net income.

10. In the absence of any evidence on the record to the contrary, there was no reason to discard the sworn testimony of Gurdev Singh and Surjit Kaur, A.Ws, on this point, viz., that the injured used to earn over Rs. 2000/- per annum by tilling the land himself. Judged by any standard, this estimate could not be an exagerated one. It was only to make good the loss of manual work previously contributed by the injured, that they had to engage two labourers or servants on a monthly pay of Rs. 150/- plus boarding expenses. Boarding expenses of one servant, by any reckoning, would not be less than Rs. 30/- per month. Thus it is this expenditure of Rs. 210/- per month that really represents the loss of earning suffered by Sukhdev Singh as a result of the injuries. There was absolutely no warrant for apportioning these expenses incurred towards the wages of the two servants among the three brothers and thus estimating the ‘actual’ loss suffered by the injured as one-third of that figure. It will bar repetition that there is no evidence on the record to show that before the accident in question, also, the three brothers were cultivating the land through Servants or labourers. On the other hand, there is the unequivocal testimony of Gurdev Singh that the three brothers used to till the land themselves. Indeed, they could not afford to keep servants if they had to cultivate economically their joint land, which measured only 50 Bighas.

11. Mr. Chhibber, however, vehemently contends that the assessment by the learned Tribunal of the prospective earnings of the injured is quite reasonable. It is emphasised that the injuries would not entail any real loss of the earnings, because the land of the injured was being actually cultivated by his two brothers, and he would be still entitled to one-third share as rent for his land which would continue to be cultivated by his brothers. The contention must be repelled. It is founded on the fallacy that the land of the injured was being cultivated by his brothers, as his tenants, and that the injured did not till the land himself, but was only receiving rent from his brothers. There is not a shred of evidence on the record which warrants such an assumption.

12. Thus, for estimating the prospective earnings of the injured there could be two ways. That is to say, either the figure of Rs. 2000/- or the amount of Rs. 2520/- (Rs. 210 × 12 = Rs. 2520/-) could be taken as the annual earning of Sukhdev Singh injured. If the former is accepted as correct and the average life-span in the country is taken as 70 years then arithmetically, the loss of prospective earnings suffered by the injured would be Rs. 84,000; (2000 × 42 = Rs. 84,000). It the latter amount is accepted as the criterion, this estimate will swell to the huge amount of Rs. 1,05,840/-. Thus, the claim of Rs. 50,000/- made by the injured is very modest. It cannot be said to be exaggerated by any standards. Even if it is supposed for the sake of argument that the injured could not have lived beyond 60 years, then also, the loss of his prospective earnings could not, in any case, be less than Rs. 64,000/- (Rs. 2000 × 32=Rs. 64,000/-). Even then the loss of prospective earnings would be far more than the claim made by him.

13. Mr. Chhibber, learned counsel for the respondent, contends that in accordance with rule number 1, quoted from Kemp and Kemp, and also in view of several authorities, including that of Veena Kumari Kohli v. Punjab Roadways . 1967 A.C.J 297., while estimating the prospective earnings due allowance and deductions have to be made for the fact that the compensation is to be paid in lump-sum.

14. Even if such allowance and substantial deductions are made from the figures arrived at by the aforesaid calculations, the compensation to be paid under this head alone, will not be less than Rs. 50,000/-.

15. Learned Tribunal has not, under the head ‘pecuniary loss’, assessed anything for the future recurring expenses on nursing and treatment of the injured, though he was conscious of the fact that the injured would incur such expenditure. He has made a casual reference to it while assessing compensation under the head of non-pecuniary loss, i.e with regard to the pain, sufferings, shock, etc. There is the categorical testimony of Dr. Gurmukh Singh Sekhon that the injured will remain incapacitated for life owing to the brain damage and other injuries sustained by him, and he will remain bed-ridden. Evidently, he will need constant attention, and nursing by a medical attendant. It is true that no evidence has been brought on the record to show whether any such medical attendant or nurse has actually been engaged for the injured after his discharge form the Hospital. But in the very nature of things, it is obvious that the injured will require such nursing and medical care. It is immaterial whether for this purpose, he engages a domestic servant or a nurse, or the wife or children to do that job. Assessment of the damages under this head, therefore, must depend upon a reasonable view founded on inferences from facts appearing in evidence. (See the observations in Swaraj Motors Private Ltd. v. T.R Raman Pillai . 1068 A.C.J 127..)

16. It is in evidence that an unskilled agricultural labourer has been engaged at a pay of Rs. 105/- per month (Rs. 75+30 = 105/-). A nurse or a medical attendant for the injured would certainly cost more. Thus, at a most austere estimate, the family would be incurring a minimal of Rs. 150/- to Rs. 200/- per month, (including the cost of medicines), which roughly work out to more than Rs. 1,800/- per annum. That means, the family would be spending as much on the care of the injured as it could, before the accident, expect to receive from his earnings, there being an annual deficit of Rs. 1,800/- in the family budget. Assuming that the injured will continue in this vegetative life for about 5 years more, these future expenses incurred on his treatment and nursing alone would not be less than Rs. 9,000/-. Thus, in addition to the loss of earnings which I have assessed at Rs. 2,000/- per annum, there will be an additional recurring loses of Rs. 1,800/- per annum for an indefinite number of years to come.

17. Under the head “non-pecuniary loss”, i.e pain, suffering, shock, etc., the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,000/- only, which is not at all a heavy amount keeping in mind that the injured has been virtually reduced to a living corpse, entailing unimaginable suffering, pain, shock to himself and endless and indefinite anguish and mental torture to his wife and children, besides spelling economic ruin.

18. It will not be out of place to mention here that in several accident cases that have been cited at the bar, substantial compensation was awarded for far less injuries. In Union of India v. Viranwali, compensation was claimed for a person killed in accident, who was earning Rs. 150/- per month. It was held by the Delhi High Court that the award of Rs. 45,000/- as lump-sum compensation to the widow and the children of the deceased was not excessive. The life expectation of the deceased was assessed at 55 years. In the instant case, however, there is an additional factor that the injured, though living, is totally incapacitated for life and will incur recuring expenses for medical attendance and nursing for the rest of his life. It was observed in this case that in recent years longevity of life has appreciably increased.

19. In K. Gopala Krishanan v. Sankara Narayanan . 1969 A.C.J 34. a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, assessed the loss of earnings for 30 years and awarded Rs. 57,865/- as compensation to a student, aged 20 years, whose left leg had to be amputed above and knee because of the injury received in an accident. The injuries in the instant case are far worse.

20. In Fletcher v. Autocar and Transporters Ltd. . 1969 A.C.J 99., decided by the Court of Appeal, England, the plaintiff received a severe head injury, broken shoulder and four broken ribs. He was unconscious for 4/5 days and remained in Hospital for a long time. The broken ribs mended. The broken shoulder left him disabled. His head did not mend. His brain had been gravely affected. The injured wast just over 56 at the time of the accident. He was a chartered quantity surveyor. He earned about £ 3000 net. He had a wife and a grown up son. The accident was a catastrophe for the plaintiff, as his mind had gone but his body was still there. He was likely to live his normal span of another 16 years, sitting in a chair all day long, doing nothing, feeling little, forgetting everything. No happiness. No sadness. Just existing. He was utterly dependent upon his wife. He had to be dressed in the morning. He took little interest in food. When asked to walk, he could shuffle accross the room with very short stiff steps. The trial Judge awarded him £ 66,447-9 s.-6d as compensation. The Court of Appeal reduced this amount to £ 51,447/-. In doing so they were mainly influenced by the fact that at the time of the accident, the injured was over 56 years of age and was expected to retire at the age of 65½ years. There was a highly speculative item relating to the plaintiff's possible earnings in his seventies.

21. The above case is the nearest parallel to the one before me. In the present case, the injured was hardly 28 years and he was expected to live and do the active work of a farmer up to the age of at least 60 years. The nature of the injuries received by Sukhdev Singh injured in the present case also is graver and worse.

22. In The State of Madras v. James Appadurai . A.I.R 1959 Mad. 369. the plaintiff was the son of a carpenter, whose brother was earning Rs. 30/- per month. He sustained a leg injury in a motor accident. For this injury, he was awarded Rs. 10,000/- as compensation.

23. In Ganapathi Bhatta v. State of Madras . A.I.R 1960 Mysore 222. (now Mysore), the plaintiff during the accident received injuries on the back of the head, upper lip, left thigh and the left elbow. Excepting the injury to the skull, the rest were simple. He was admitted to the hospital in a critical condition. He was discharged from the Hospital after 2½ months as cured, but was advised to take rest. After his discharge from the Hospital, he was not able to appear in the Intermediate examination for which he was studying. It was found that his general condition was substantially impaired even after his discharge from the Hospital, as a result of which his capacity for work had become reduced. He had to discontinue studies for two years before re-joining the College. The learned Judges, however, held that the injuries sustained by the appellant before them were neither very serious nor quite simple. The total amount payable to the injured as compensation was, therefore, assessed at Rs. 7500/-. It that case—it may be noted—, the plaintiff had reduced his claim in appeal to Rs. 10,000/- only Moreover, the injuries suffered in that case were far less serious and had not caused total incapacity.

24. Bearing in mind the special facts of the case under consideration, it is clear that the award of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation (i.e Rs. 46,000/- under the head ‘pecuniary loss’ including loss of prospective earnings and the future expenses to be incurred on nursing and medical attendance, and Rs. 4000/- for pain, suffering, shock, etc.) will be in accord with the general run of assessment made by the Courts in comparable cases, noted above.

25. For the foregoing reasons, I would allow this appeal with costs, and enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to Rs. 50,000/-.

Appeal allowed.