Ranjit Singh vs Beant Singh and others

Iqbal Singh, J.

This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by appellant Ranjit Singh against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 6.5.1983 vide which the First Appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment of SubJudge Ist Class, Amritsar, dated 18.4.1974 in the suit for recovery of Rs. 40,000/ as compensation under the Fatal Accident Act XIII of 1855 and under tort on account of loss of one eye, was accepted and suit of the plaintiff appellant was decree for a sum of Rs. 20,000/ along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of suit till payment thereof.

Necessary facts are as under :

On 20.7.1968, the plaintiffappellant Ranjit Singh was coming from his fields at about 5/6 P.M. When he reached near the School, Beant Singh, Gurbax Singh, Randhir Singh and Harbans Singh waylaid him. Randhir Singh was armed with takua and Beant Singh, Gurbax Singh and Harbans Singh were armed with the dang each. Gurbax Singh thrust his dang on the right eye of Ranjit Singh appellant due to which his eye ball was badly damaged and it had to be ultimately removed. He was also caused six other injuries. The plaintiff appellant, in the suit, claimed compensation of Rs. 40,000/ i.e. Rs. 20,000/ for the loss of eye, pains, sufferings and medical expenses, and Rs. 10,000/ each for his two minor children to whom he became unable to maintain due to loss of his right eye as his left eye was already so weak that he was rendered incapacitated to earn for their livelihood.

During the pendency of the suit, Harbans Singh (defendant) died and the suit was contested by the remaining three defendants, namely, Beant Singh, Gurbax Singh and Randhir Singh.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following two issues were framed besides that of relief :

Whether defendants Nos. 1 to 4 have without any reasonable and probable cause and wailfully caused injuries to the plaintiff (vide para 7 of the plaint) ? If so, its effect ? O.P.P.

In case issue No. 1 is proved, whether the defendants are liable to pay damages to the plaintiff and if so, what amount ? O.P.P."

The trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 18.4.1974, dismissed the suit. The appeal was preferred and the learned single judge allowed the appeal with costs, setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiffappellant for Rs. 20,000/ with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till payment thereof. Not satisfied with this decree, the present Letter Patent Appeal has been filed before us.

This Letter Patent Appeal was earlier dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 6.8.1991 on account of compromise but later on vide order dated 9.12.1994 the said order dated 6.8.1991 was recalled and it was ordered that the appeal would be heard on merits.

Mr. R.L. Batta, Senior Advocate, along with Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the appellant. None has appeared for the respondents even after personal service.

It is a case where the plaintiffappellant has lost his right eye. He was a young man of 32 years at the time when he sustained the injury and was working as a Paid Patwari candidate. His left eye was already very weak and on account of loss of right eye, he lost his job. At that time, he was drawing Rs. 175/ per month as his salary.

Now the question which calls for determination is whether the compensation awarded to the appellant needs to be enanced. There is no gain in saying that loss of vision is a permanent disability which renders a person incapacitated for all times to come. He is incapacitated not only to the extent of earning livelihood for himself and his family, but it brings lot of mental pain, sufferings and agony. Besides, he also suffers loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. The plaintiffappellant had made a claim of Rs. 10,000/ for the education of each of his children, i.e. Rs. 20,000/ and Rs. 20,000/ for the loss of vision. The learned Single Judge while deciding the First Appeal noticed that there is evidence that father of the appellant had a flour mill and his (appellant''s) brother was running the same and was giving income of the same to the appellant. It is further noticed by the learned Single Judge that the plaintiffappellant had not shown what was his income and how much was payable to his minor children for dependency; but, in our view, this is no ground to deny the plaintiffappellant the compensation as claimed by him. Father of the appellant may be having a flour mill which was being run by the brother of the appellant. They may be helping him out of sympathy, but how long ? They are under no legal obligation to do so. Even if father and brother of the appellant were helping him, he cannot be denied the damages claimed by him. The plaintiffappellant has made a claim on account of the injury sustained by him in his right eye at the hands of the defendants and once it is proved that he suffered damage to his eye on account of the said injury, he cannot be denied the claim; particularly when he was a young man of 32 years at the time he sustained the injury and long life lay ahead of him. He had a wife and two minor children to support, who were dependent upon him at least till the time they attain the majority The claim of Rs. 10,000/ each for bringing up the children in these days of high prices which are escalating day by day cannot be said to be high. Rather, in our opinion, it is very meagre sum. Needless to say, it is not a case of loss of limb which stands in a category apart from a case of loss of sense or faculty and, more particularly, of eyesight. Therefore, the compensation must necessarily be on a higher scale in the case of involvement of eyes. The trend in other countries also points in the same direction. In the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and another v. Niranjan Ambalal Patel and others, 1981 A.C.J. 53, an award of Rs. 37,500/ was made for loss of vision in one eye. In this case, the plaintiffappellant was a paid Patwari candidate and in due course of his career, he must have got promotions atleast to the level of Tehsildar. He has been deprived of the same on account of loss of vision. He has been incapacitated for all times to come. He has suffered a substantial and real loss of earning capacity as a result of injury received by him. Therefore, keeping in view the high cost of living and pecuniary loss suffered by the appellant, we find that it is a fit case which needs enhancement of compensation.

Consequently, the decree passed by the learned Single Judge is modified and suit of the plaintiffappellant is decreed with costs for Rs. 40,000/ as claimed. This amount shall be payable with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum till today from the date of filing of the suit and will carry 6 per cent per annum future interest till realisation.