Jagdeep Singh and Another vs Anokh Singh and Others

S.S Sodhi, J.—The claim in appeal here is for enhanced compensation. The claimants, Jagdeep Singh and Amarjit Singh, suffered serious injuries when the motor cycle they were travelling on, was involved in an accident with the Haryana Roadways bus HYA 2270. This happened on August 27, 1978 at about 10.45 p.m. on the road between Sectors 20 and 33 in Chandigarh.

It was the finding of the Tribunal that this was a case of contributor negligence with both the bus driver as also Jagdeep Singh, the driver of the motor cycle, being equally to blame. In view of this finding, the Tribunal awarded as compensation only half the amount that not only Jagdeep Singh but also Amarjit Singh would otherwise have been entitled to. Accordingly, though compensation to Jagdeep Singh was assessed at Rs. 36,600/- that awarded was only Rs. 18,300/-. Similarly, Amarjit Singh was awarded only Rs. 21,300/- instead of Rs. 42,600/- which was the compensation assessed in his case. Such reduction in the case of the claimant Amarjit Singh was indeed unwarranted.

The finding of contributory negligence, however, calls for no interference in appeal. On the claimants'' own showing, the accident occurred when despite seeing the bus coming from his right on the main road at a fast speed, Jagdeep Singh proceeded to enter it in order to go across it. In such a situation, it was clearly incumbent upon Jagdeep Singh to have stopped and allowed the bus to pass before entering the main road. Jagdeep Singh being at fault is thus writ large.

The main point for determination in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation payable to the two injured claimants, who both undoubtedly sustained serious injuries.

Taking up the case of claimant-Jagdeep Singh, the doctor who examined him soon after the accident was PW 2, Dr. B.K. Khurana, Senior Resident Surgeon at the Post Graduate Medical Institute, Chandigarh. He deposed that on examining Jagdeep Singh, late in the night on August 27, 1978, he found that he had the following injuries on his person:

(1) Lacerated wound over right supra orbital region extending to right upper eyelid. 2" long.

(2) Abrasion about 1�" size left shoulder.

(3) Abrasion about 2" long over dorsem of left forearm 1" above the wrist joint.

(4) Abrasion over dorsem of left hand 1".

(5) Abrasion 2" long over right lateral aspect of chest.

(6) Abrasion over left knee about 1" size.

(7) Lacerated wound 6" long. The fracture of both bones right leg.

(8) Fractured pelvis.

Injury Nos. 7 and 8 were found to be grievous while the others were simple in nature.

While at the Post Graduate Institute at Chandigarh, plastic surgery was also performed upon him with regard to the lacerated wound over his right eyebrow. This was done by PW 2 (should be PW 3) Dr. Dattar Singh, who deposed that this wound was bone-deep and extended into the eye. This injury was simple and the wound was treated by stitching, but he opined, this injury would result in a permanent scar.

The major part of the treatment of Jagdeep Singh was done at the Rajendra Hospital, Patiala. The two doctors, who deposed to this, were PW 3 Dr. Rajinder Singh Thind, Professor and Head of the Department of Plastic Reconstructive Surgery, Government Medical College, Patiala and PW 7 Dr. Dalbir Singh, both of the Rajendra Hospital, Patiala. According to PW 3 Dr. Rajinder Singh Thind, the claimant Jagdeep Singh was admitted in the hospital at Patiala on November 13, 1978. When he saw him two days later, he found that he had extensive lacerated compound fracture of the right leg with extensive loss of the over-injury skin. He was disoriented and depressed and had difficulty in passing urine on account of his injury to the pelvis and urethra.

Dr. Thind went on to depose that he performed seven operations upon the claimant-Jagdeep Singh. These being for skin-grafting, padical skin-graft in stages and bone-grafting and that he was still under treatment, that is, on September 20. 1979 when the doctor made the statement Dr. Thind giving details of the operations stated that skin-grafting on the leg was done on October 12, 1978; padical skin-graft was given as cross leg flap on November 25, 1978. Extension of flap was done about a month later on December 26, 1978. The separation of the flap was done on January 6, 1979 and the nailing and bone-graft was done on May 5, 1979.

Dr. Thind further stated that the claimant-Jagdeep Singh was still not able to move about on account of his injuries to his leg and the treatment that he was undergoing was likely to continue for at least another three months and his rehabilitation thereafter would take further six months.

As regards the disabilities of the claimant-Jagdeep Singh, it was the testimony of Dr. Thind that there was a shortening of his leg by about 3 inches with a permanent disability in the right leg in the form of stiffness and limp. He could not, therefore, use his right limb properly for active vocation. There was also stiffness of the ankle and the knee joint. The disability of leg, he said, was 70 lo 80 per cent.

Such being the condition of Jagdeep Singh and considering also all the pain and suffering that he has undergone and the disabilities that he is now left with, there can be no manner of doubt that the compensation awarded was wholly inadequate. In this behalf, it also deserves note that it was the unrebutted testimony of the claimant-PW 4, Jagdeep Singh that he was a good sportsman having earned colours in Hockey and Football and that he had also taken part in the Republic Day Parade being a member of the N.C.C. Contingent. What is more he had qualified for interview for the National Defence Academy, implying thereby that a career in the army was what he was aiming for. He was only 18 years of age at the time of the accident.

Mr. V.P. Gandhi rightly contended that having regard to the present state of the claimant, his career prospects have indeed been adversely affected and besides this, he would also be at a severe disadvantage in the marriage market too.

There can, of course, be no precise measure in monetary terms of the amount payable to an injured claimant which would provide him his due recompense in money for all that he has undergone or is likely to undergo on account of the injuries caused to him. Each case has thus to be considered on its own merits. Seen in the context of the situation of the claimant here, it would be fair and just to hold him entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering; loss of amenities of life arising from his disabilities and the impairment of his career and marriage prospects.

Besides this, the claimant must also be held entitled to the other expenses which he has already incurred as also those which are likely to incur on his treatment. Being the son of Government Officer, the claimant was, of course, entitled to medical reimbursement, but as is well-known, such reimbursement does not cover all the expenses that accrue to the injured in his treatment. These would include special diet cost of transportation to and from hospital, both for him and his attendant as also the cost of his attendant. Considering his long period of treatment, which is still not over yet, compensation on these accounts deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 20,000/-. The total compensation would thus work out to Rs. 1,20,000/-. The claimant-Jagdeep Singh would, however, be entitled to only half thereof, on account of his contributory negligence in the accident.

Turning now to the case of the other claimant-Amarjit Singh, here again, the doctor who first examined him was PW 2, Dr. B.K. Khurana, who found ten injuries on his person. These being:

(1) Lacerated wound 1�" long, transverse over right half of forehead.

(2) Lacerated wound about 1" over right eyebrow.

(3) Lacerated wound about 1� over eye.

(4) Lacerated wound right temporal region about 3/4th of an inch.

(5) Abrasion 2" long extending from forehead to right temporal region.

(6) Deep lacerated wound over upper lip about 2" long, vertical extending upto nostrils.

(7) Lacerated wound over chin about 1" long.

(8) Abrasion over left forearm 2 cm. long.

(9) Abrasion over left knee.

(10) Lacerated wound with evulsion of skin and fracture of both bones of right leg.

Injury No. 10 was found to be grievous while all the others were simple in nature.

Next is the testimony of PW 7 Dr. Dalbir Singh of Rajendra Hospital, Patiala, who deposed that Amarjit Singh was admitted in the hospital there on October 8, 1979 with a compound fracture of the right leg with skin-graft and with non-union. On October 13, 1979, open reduction, internal fixation and bone-grafting was done and he was then discharged from the hospital on October 24, 1979. He had been attending the hospital thereafter. Plaster of paris casts were given to him on two or three occasions and according to this doctor, this would be required to be repeated for another two or three times. Even in March, 1980, when this doctor came into the witness box, he stated that Amarjit Singh had not yet been allowed to use crutches, which is indicative of the serious nature of his injuries.

Amarjit Singh was also treated by PW 3-Dr. Rajinder Singh Thind, who deposed that he had been admitted under his care on February 12, 1979 and was discharged on May 20, 1979. Two operations were performed upon him; one on February 27, 1979 and the other on March 15, 1979 when his leg was provided with cross-leg flap which was separated on April 15, 1979. He stated that Amarjit Singh had compound fractures of the leg and there was a shortening thereof to the extent of 2" with a 30 per cent permanent disability and he would consequently walk with a moderate limp.

When the claimant-Amarjit Singh came into the witness box, he deposed that he had been rendered unconscious at the time of the accident and he regained consciousness only 10/15 days later at the Post Graduate Medical Institute, Chandigarh. He had fractures on his leg as also in his right jaw on account of which his mouth was closed with wires. He remained an indoor patient in the Post Graduate Medical Institute for about three months where plastic surgery was also performed upon him. He was also operated upon in respect of fractures in his leg. The wires in his jaw were removed after over a month. His jaw, he stated, had now become weak and he could not, therefore, chew hard food.

Amarjit Singh went on to depose that after his discharge from the Post Graduate Medical Institute, he was admitted at the Rajendra Hospital, Patiala, where plastic surgery was performed upon him. He made particular mention of the operation where both his legs were joined upto the knee and plastered altogether. He stated that this was a very painful operation and he remained in this position for over a month. In October 1979, an operation for bone-grafting was performed upon him and his leg was again put under plaster. His leg, he stated, had now been shortened by about three inches. He also stated that he was discharged from the hospital at Patiala after over 2� months. He complained of having remained in great agony ever since the accident.

The claimant-Amarjit Singh too was a young student of only about 18 years of age. He was a student in the Pre-Medical Class of the D.A.V. College, Chandigarh. According to him, he too was a sportsman and took part in games like Hockey, Cricket and Football. He stated that his intention was to become a doctor.

In case of the claimant Amarjit Singh too, it must be observed that the compensation awarded was wholly inadequate, considering the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by him, the pain and suffering caused to him thereby and the disabilities which he is now left with, as also the impairment in his career and marriage prospects. Considered in the total situation of the claimant, compensation on this account clearly deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 80,000/-.

The claimant must in addition also be held entitled to compensation for the expenses incurred on his treatment and other miscellaneous expenses involved therein like cost of attendant and travelling to and from hospital besides, of course, the actual hospitalization charges and for operations and medicines. There was no question of any medical imbursement in his case. Considering the long period of hospitalization, the operations performed upon the claimant and his long period of treatment, Rs. 20,000/-would be a fair estimate of the expenses incurred on these accounts. The total compensation payable to this claimant would thus work out to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. one lac only).

It deserves mention that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the claimant-Amarjit Singh and he has thus to be awarded the entire amount that he has been found entitled to. It is only in the case of the other claimant Jagdeep Singh, the driver of the motor cycle, that compensation has to be reduced to one-half of what he was otherwise entitled to keeping in view his contributory negligence in the accident.

The compensation payable to the claimant-Jagdeep Singh is accordingly hereby enhanced to Rs. 60,000/- (Rs. sixty thousand only) and that to the other claimant-Amarjit Singh to Rs. 1,00,000/-. The claimants shall be entitled to the compensation awarded along with 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. The Respondents shall be jointly and severally liable for the compensation awarded.

In the result, both appeals are hereby accepted with costs. Counsel''s fee Rs. 500/- (One set only).