Rajnish Chopra vs Ran Singh and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The claimant Rajnish Chopra seeks enhanced compensation for the injuries sustained by him in an accident with the bus CHW 138. He was on his scooter when the bus came and hit into it, resulting in the injuries suffered. This happened at Ambala on August 18,1978.

It was the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. A total sum of Rs. 12,500/- was awarded as compensation for the injuries caused to the claimant in this accident.

Rajnish Chopra was 35 years of age at the time of the accident. According to the evidence on record, he was employed in business with his father. He has now been left with a seriously impaired memory rendering him incapable of working in business, besides also undergoing the pain and suffering caused to him by his other injuries which included a fracture of the lower end of left femur and upper part of left tibia. It has also come in evidence that Rajnish Chopra remained admitted in the P.G.I. from August 19, 1978 to September 9, 1978 and then for about seven weeks in the Military Hospital besides the period that he spent in the hospital at Lucknow where he had undergone surgery in respect of a blood clot.

In deposing to the state of the claimant, Rajnish Chopra, PW 9 Dr. D.R. Gulati, Professor and Head of Neuro-Surgery at the P.G.I., Chandigarh, stated that the claimant was unconscious when he was admitted in the P.G.I and had not been cured when he was discharged from the P.G.I, on September 9, 1978, as he was still not responding to calls and was restless and rolling in bed. He saw him again as an outdoor patient when he complained of generalised headache and forgetfulness. He was informed by his father and other relations of his behave our disturbances like losing his temper and sudden changes in mood. He also deposed to the impairment of the memory of the claimant. It was stated that his remote memory was fairly good but his recent memory had been markedly affected. Further, it was said that he could feed himself but needed assistance in dressing. He could not make out bills of do any accounts work. He could tell the name; of his brothers and sisters but not their dates of birth. He could not tell the food that he has taken the previous day. His psychometric evaluation was carried out and the memory test; showed poor capacity to learn and retain new material. His perceptional activity on percepts constructive task was below average. The improvement in the condition of the claimant, was said, was possible within first six month and then upto three years, but after three years there was no scope for improvement.

There is then the testimony of PW h Dr. Dwarka Parshad, Lecturer in Psychology a the P.G.I., Chandigarh, who deposed that the capacity of the claimant to learn new things an'' his power of retention was poor. He further stated that there was a 20 per cent decline in the intelligence functioning of the claimant.

PW 11 Mrs. Rajni Chopra, the wife of the claimant, besides deposing to the hospital sation and medical treatment of her husband stated that after the accident, Rajnish Chopra had not performed his marital obligator towards her and had become short-tempered and was unable to carry on any business at the shop. His memory of recent events was very week. She further deposed that she had to help her husband in putting on his clothes and that she had spent about Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 8.000/- on his treatment.

Next to note is the testimony of PW 8 Om Parkash Chopra, the father of the claimant, who corroborated the earlier testimony regarding the treatment and hospitalisation of the claimant and his disabilities particularly his loss of memory and inability to look after himself.

The claimant himself had also come into the witness-box as PW 5. He gave his name and age correctly, but could not recollect how the accident had occurred or that he had been taken to the hospital. He deposed that he now only sits in the shop but does not help in the business there. He also stated that he is unable to walk properly and that it is his wife who puts on his clothes on him.

The state of the claimant Rajnish Chopra being as has been described above, there can be no question of his ever being able to earn his livelihood as he could before this accident. Mr. V.P. Gandhi appearing for the claimant thus sought compensation on the ground of loss of income to the claimant for himself and his wife and dependent children and in addition a claim was also put-forth for the services which the claimant now requires on account of his inability to put on his clothes by himself and generally to look after himself. Besides this, there was a claim made for the pain and agony suffered by the claimant and the permanent disability particularly of loss of memory that he is now left with and finally for the amount spent on his medical treatment.

The claimant is indeed entitled to all the costs of his medical treatment. No receipt or account of the amount spent has been placed on record, but this much is there that he was treated and hospitalised at the Post Graduate Institute, Military Hospital and also at the hospital at Lucknow. It was a long period of treatment that he had to undergo. Besides medicines and hospital charges there must have been incidental charges too like special diet and travelling expenses. All things considered Rs. 7,000/- would be a fair estimate of the medical expenses of the claimant which he must thus be held entitled to under this head.

Further, the evidence shows that the claimant''s ability to earn stands seriously impaired and consequently his loss of income is the next head under which compensation has been claimed. Both, according to the father of the claimant as also his wife, the claimant used to earn Rs. 500/- per month before this accident. There is no reason to doubt this figure as salesmen and shop assistants are known to earn such an amount every month. This, however, is not really a case of loss of income, but also of the claimant being left largely incapable of looking after himself for the rest of his life and being dependent, therefore, upon others for the incidents and requirements of his daily living. The compensation payable here must thus take into account not only the loss of his earnings but also the added cost of the services which have now been rendered imperative for him by his physical and mental condition. There are, of course, various imponderable factors; which must also be reckoned with, for example, early natural death, disability arising due to illness and other natural calamities. Generally speaking, the principles which must govern the computation of compensation in such cases are akin to those relating to the determination of compensation payable to the dependents of the deceased, with this important difference that instead of some amount being deducted on account of the expenses, which the deceased must have been incurring upon himself a specific amount must be added to the loss suffered by the claimant as the cost of services, gratuitous or otherwise which the claimant now requires for his physical needs which are attributable to the accident. In other words, the value of such services must figure as a component of the damages that the claimant would be entitled. The principles for determining compensation payable to the heirs of the deceased are as set out by the Full Bench in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 ACJ 170 (P &H), where it was laid down that for the purpose of calculating the just compensation, annual dependency of the dependents should be determined in terms of the annual loss accruing to them due to the abrupt termination of life. For this purpose, annual earning of the deceased at the time of the accident and the amount out of the same which he was spending for the maintenance of the dependents will be the determining factor. This basic figure is then to be multiplied by a suitable multiplier. In the later case of Asha Rani v. Union of India 1983 ACJ 52 (P &H), it was held that 16 was the normal multiplier in such cases.

Considering the circumstances and the condition of the claimant here, the loss to the claimant of his earning capacity deserves to be computed at Rs. 3,000/- per annum with a multiplier of 16, which would work out to Rs. 48,000/- and for cost of services Rs. 20,000/-

Finally, damages are also payable to the claimant for the pain and agony suffered by him as also the loss of enjoyment of amenities of life on account of his permanent disability, particularly his loss of memory. Having regard to the circumstances and the state of the claimant, it would be just and reasonable to award him a sum of Rs. 25,000/- under these heads.

In the result, the compensation payable to the claimant is hereby enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/- which he shall be entitled to along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application to the date of payment of the amount awarded. The Respondents shall be jointly and severally liable for the compensation awarded.

This appeal is hereby accepted with costs. Counsel''s fee Rs. 300/-.