Inderjit Kaur vs Punjab State and others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—Compensation payable for loss of the right arm in the context of the circumstances of the claimant Inderjit Kaur is what falls for determination in this appeal. While travelling in the Panjab Roadways bus PUG: 7686, the claimant Inderjit Kaur had her right arm chopped off when this bus collided with another Panjab Roadways bus PUW: 3039 coming from the opposite direction. This happened on May 30, 1976, near village Khanpur on the Chandigarh Ludhiana road.

It was the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of both the bus drivers, who were equally to blame for the occurrence. A sum of Rs. 53,000/- was awarded at compensation to the claimant Inderjit Kaur.

A reference to the evidence would show that the claimant was hospitalised for 18 days at the Postgraduate Medical Institute, Chand garh, where she was also operated upon After her discharge from the hospital, she remained confined to bed for about five months and what is more, her services as Lecturer were terminated and she remained without employment for a period of 15 months from June 1976 to August 1977.

The claimant Inderjit Kaur was only about 27 years old when she was involved in this unfortunate accident She had an M. A. degree in English and History from Panjab University and was at that time a Lecturer of the Master Tara Singh Memorial Girls College, Ludhiana, where her emoluments as such were Rs. 350/- per month

When she appeared in the witness-box P. W. 8 Inderjit Kaur stated that as a result of this accident, she had not only lost her job but was also deprived of the opportunity of bettering her prospects in life by trying to get into the Indian Administrative Service. She deposed, in this behalf that on her first attempt she had qualified for Interview but could not make the grade. She had two chances thereafter. She had been studying for this examination and had also sent in her entrance form but on account of the accident she could not lit for this examination and had thereafter become over age.

Severe handicaps are so inherent and obvious in a right handed person losing her right arm. As stated by the claimant here, in her profession as teacher she now has to learn to write with her left-hand. And writing is of such vital importance to teachers. Further, she stated that she had a flair for painting, an interest she can now no longer pursue, nor indeed can she do things like knitting, tailoring or even cooking. Even for her personal needs she is now dependent on others. This if undoubtedly a sad state for a young lady to be in.

Mr. V. P. Gandhi, counsel for the claimant, then adverted to the adverse effects of the injury suffered upon the claimant''s prospects of marriage. This must indeed be construed as a matter of material significance, considering our social meres where marriage is looked upon with such hope and expectation by all young women, as indeed their parents too Reference here was pointedly made to the evidence regarding the broken engagement of the claimant which came about solely on account of the less of her right arm Further, the very nature of the injury suffered is such that the claimant cannot but he expected to be always conscious of it This must inevitably have an adverse psychological effect upon her

In a case like the present, there can, of course, be no precise measure in monetary terms of the pain and suffering caused to the claimant, her loss of enjoyment of life on account of her injuries as also the overall adverse effects of the serious disabilities that she now has to put up with for the rest of her life. Awards for similar injuries can provide guidance and must, therefore, be duly considered. One such precedent is provided by Prem Devi v. Harbhajan Singh 1984 A. C. J. 707, where Rs. 30,000/ was awarded as compensation to a 49 years old house-wife, who lost her left arm in a motor accident. In another case Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. Qimat Rai Jain I. L. R. (1984) P&H . 466, for the loss of his right arm, the claimant, Qlmat Rai, a young man, was awarded Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. Each case has, however, to be decided having regard to the overall situation of the claimant before and after the injury suffered. Considered in this light, the circumstances of the claimant as spelt out in the discussion earlier, clearly entitle her to a considerably larger sum as compensation. It would, therefore, be fair and just to assess general damages in her case at Rs. 1 lakh.

In addition, following the precedent of Rattanjit Kaur v. State of Haryana 1981 A.C.J. 416, the claimant must also be awarded Rs. 25,000/- for loss of prospects of marriage on account of the injury sustained.

Besides this, the claimant must also be held entitled to compensation for cost of an attendant which she would now undoubtedly require, at least, part time for the rest of her life. Considering her young ago and the consequent long expectancy of life, Rs. 25,000/- would be reasonable estimate for her expenses on this count.

As regards the special damages claimed, there is in the first instance the cost of the artificial limb provided to he claimant. It has come in evidence that she had to go to Germany for this purpose and an artificial arm was filed upon her there. There is in this behalf, the testimony of P W. 12, Col D S. Vohra, Director, Navedac Prosthetic Centre, Changarh, who deposed that Inderjit Kaur had been referred to him by Dr v. P Bansal, Orthopaedic Surgon at the Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh. She wanted a functional artificial arm Such an arm was not manufactured in India and he consequently issued a certificate in December, 1976 recommending the fitting of Myo-Electric artificial arm which was being manufactured by M/s Otto Bock in West Germany. He asked for and obtained as estimate of the cost thereof from this firm for such artifical arm. Exhibit C. I, he proved as the estimate received, where the cost was mentioned to be D. M 6400/- .

Next to note is the testimony of P. W. 8 Inderjit Kaur, who testified to her visit to Germany and her stay there for 35 days. During this period, she obtained and got fitted a M. E artificial arm from M/s Otto Bock of Duderstadi at a cost of Rs. 25,000/-. Besides this, she stated that her total expenses were about Rs. 200/- per flay. To prove this expenditure, she proved on record bills Exhibit C 5, C. 6 and C. 7. There was then her air fare to and from Germany which, she stated, cost her Rs. 10,000/- .

There can be no manner of doubt that the injury suffered by the claimant did indeed necessitate her going abroad for obtaining an artificial limb The bills and the estimate proved on record, as also the evidence of her air travel expenses, amply justify her claim for Rs. 40,000/- on this account.

There is then a claim for Rs. 7,000/- for loss of income for the period that the claimant remained unemployed as a result of this accident, that is, from June, 1976 to August, 1977. It has come in evidence that she had been employee as a lecturer at Rs. 550/- per month. Calculated at this rate, the amount claimed must indeed be awarded to her.

As for the cost of the claimant''s medical treatment in India, the Tribunal had award her Rs. 3,000/- on this account No enhancement was sought here.

The total compensation thus payable to the claimant works out to Rs 2 lakhs, which is hereby awarded 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.

In the result, the appeal filed by the claimant, Inderjit Kaur, is hereby accepted while that of the State of Punjab is dismissed with costs. Counsel''s fees Rs. 300/- .