Inder Singh vs Syed Hussain and Another

M.S. Liberhan, CJ.

The appellant, aged 40 years at the relevant time and who was working as Sub-Inspector of Excise, met with an accident on 10-10-1986 resulting in fracture of left leg and left hand and shortening of leg by three inches. The injured was drawing a net salary of Rs.1,560/- at the relevant time. As a result of the accident, the appellant remained on leave on full pay for three months, on half-pay for some period and thereafter without salary for some other period. By the time the award was passed by the Tribunal, the appellant continued to be in service. But, ultimately, it appears that on account of the shortening of the leg by 3", he was ordered to be retired from service on medical invalidation grounds by order dated 27-12-1995 of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise (Hyderabad Division). The appellant has filed a miscellaneous petition i.e., CMP No.1252 of 1999 praying this Court to place on record the proceedings issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise discharging the appellant from service on medical invalidation grounds. Since the event of discharging him from service had taken place during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, we are inclined to allow the said application.

Before the Tribunal, the appellant claimed a total compensation of Rs. two lakhs. The insurer and the driver remained ex parte before the Tribunal while the Insurance Company with a total irresponsibility and without verifying the facts, though a copy of the FIR was communicated to them, took all possible pleas of denial like denial of rash negligent driving on the part of the driver and even the accident itself apart from the quantum of compensation claimed. The parties went on trial on various issues framed by the Tribunal. The Insurance Company did not examine any witnesses, not even the driver or the owner of the vehicle, in defence to prove that there was no rash and negligence on the part of the driver. The Tribunal on a consideration of the material evidence adduced on record came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver and that the appellant had suffered 75% of permanent disability and accordingly passed an award granting a total compensation of Rs.86,900/- under various heads as follows :

Loss of earnings : Rs. 23,400/-

Towards transport to hospital : Rs. 3,000/-

Towards extra nourishment : Rs. 2,000/-

Towards medical expenses : Rs. 5,000/-

Towards hospital charges : Rs. 3500/-

Towards pain and suffering : Rs. 5,000/-

Towards continuing permanent disability : Rs. 15,000/-

Towards loss of future earnings : Rs.30,000/-

The Tribunal, however, awarded interest only from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the same, the injured preferred appeal before this Court. In the appeal, the learned single Judge, on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that the amount of Rs.5,000/-awarded towards pain and suffering is insufficient and accordingly increased the compensation under the said head by another sum of Rs.5,000/-, which was the only point urged before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge also came to the conclusion that there was no justification to deny interest to the appellant from the dates of petition and accordingly directed payment of interest at 12% per annum from the dates of petition on the total compensation amount awarded. Being further aggrieved of the order of the learned single Judge, the appellant has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

In a catena of judgments, the Apex Court held that discharge of an employee, who met with an accident, on medical grounds on account of shortening of leg, will result in deprivation of active service of the employee, loss of chances of promotion, loss of pension etc. In the instant case, the appellant who was aged 40 years at the time of the accident has been discharged on medical grounds in the year 1995 and by that time he has still nine more years of active service. There can be no exact amount which could be arithmetically calculated for the loss of the above benefits to the appellant. Under those circumstances, only rule of thumb has to be applied to do justice to arrive at the reasonable and just compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case.

It is axiomatic that no compensation can be assessed for injury or loss of future income in golden scales. Some rule of thumb has to be adhered to assess the figure as just and reasonable compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. There are various methods enumerating various parameters to assess the compensation have been laid down in umpteen number of judgments. But sum-total of the principle is to come to a just compensation irrespective of the various heads in which compensation can be assessed. Herein, in view of the circumstances that the leg of a person having been shortened by three inches resulting in 75% permanent disability, if we may term it notionally has resulted in permanent disability when he has been discharged from service on medical grounds. Keeping in view the trend of assessing the just compensation in various precedents, we are of the considered view that compensation with respect to loss of future income Rs.30,000/- would be too meagre. Even on the theory of interest, it does not come up to the salary which the injured would have drawn in ordinary course. Thus, in our considered view, increase of the compensation with respect to loss of future income from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/-would be reasonable and just compensation in the circumstances. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal and the single Judge under various other heads is upheld. Thus, the injured would be entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 1,11,900/-. The injured would further be entitled to total compensation assessed above with 12% interest per annum from the date of claim petition.

We cannot restrain ourselves inspite of the judicial constraints in observing that the respondent-company being a responsible organisation instead of meeting the just claim of the appellant without holding any proper enquiry brought to our notice by the responsible officers of the company for not meeting the just claim of the injured at the appropriate time has not only resulted in long drawn litigation adding to the suffering of the people and defeating the very object of insurance and which has a sacred duty to meet the claim of the injured for whom the insurance is meant. All vexatious and frivolous objections were raised on account of which the Insurance Company had to pay interest of 12% per annum for almost twelve years without there being any responsibility of any officer of such a wanton act of the authorities responsible for settling the claims. We have no doubt that the authorities would take appropriate steps to fix the responsibility for such a lapse and intimate to this Court the action taken and the responsibility fixed for which the public exchequer has suffered.

With those observations the Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of subject to above modification.