Mrs. Santosh kamra and others vs Haryana State and others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—In an accident between the Haryana State Electricity Board jeep HRH-7279 and the Haryana Roadways Bus HRH-5188, coming from the opposite direction, Sohan Lal Kamra, who was in the jeep was killed while Gobind Raj Mehta, Assistant Executive Engineer, who was driving it, sustained injuries. This happened on May 2, 1980 at about 2-30 P.M. on the Sirsa-Hissar Road. Two separate claims for compensation were filed-one by the widow and children of Sohan LalKamra deceased and the other by the injured claimant Gobind Raj Mehta. These two claim applications were unfortunately entrusted to different Tribunals for disposal and they came to contradictory findings on the issue of negligence in Gobind Raj Mehta''s case which was decided on May 31, 1983, negligence was held to be wholly that of the bus-driver, but in the other claim application, namely that relating to Sohan Lal Kamra deceased, the Tribunal held that the fault lay entirely with the driver of the jeep. As it happens no appeal has been filed by the State of Haryana in Gobind Raj Mehta''s case with the result that the funding of the Tribunal that the accident had been caused due to the negligence of the bus-driver, has now acquired finality. This percludes the court now from giving any different findings in appeal here and it must consequently also follow that the finding in the case of Sohan Lal Kamra deceased that the negligence was of the driver of the jeep cannot be allowed to stand. In other words, it must beheld that the accident here must be taken to have been caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus-driver.

As regards the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants, it will be seen that in the case of Sohan Lal Kamra, the claimants have already been awarded the entire amount claimed. The only relief that they can thus claim and must also be granted to them is with regard to the interest payable on the amount awarded.

The main claim for enhanced compensation is in the case of the injured claimant Gobind Raj Mehta. According to P.W. 1 Prof. R.K. Keshwani of the Medical College, Rohtak, the claimant had laceration on his face and fracture of the bones around the left eye. He had also a fracture on the left scapula bone and fracture of left tibia. He had problem with the movement of the left eye. During his treatment in the hospital, a complication arose on account of the development of meningitis which was said to be the direct result of his injuries. Prof. Keshwani went on to depose that he operated upon the eye bones of the claimant. There were multiple fractures there and the bones had to be wired together. As a result of this accident, the claimant had suffered disfigurement of the face which was of a permanent nature.

The evidence also shows that Gobind Raj Mehta remained admitted at the hospital at Rohtak for about a month and was then referred to the Post Graduate Medical Institute at Chandigarh, where he was treated for about a month and a half. It is said that he had also been referred to All India Medical Institute at New Delhi.

Deposing to his own injuries, P.W. 7 Gobind Raj Mehta stated that besides the permanent disfigurement of his face near the left eye, he was also suffering pain in the left scapula and on that account, he could not lift weights nor could he play any game. As regards the injury to the eye, it was said that his vision had been impaired and he continued to see double objects.

Further, the claimant as also his father P.W. 10. Gurdial Mehta deposed to the Medical expenses incurred in the treatment of the claimant. It was their testimony that over Rs. 20,000/- had been spent by them for this purpose. No accounts, bills or receipts have, however, been produced on record. All that has come in evidence is, as per the testimony of P.W. 9 Daya Nand that the claimant had submitted bills for medical reimbursement to the extent of Rs. 12,220/-and the claimant had been paid Rs. 9,140/-.

There can be no hard and fast rule or precise measure for computing in terms of money what would be the correct measure of compensation for the injuries suffered by the claimant and the consequences thereof. By its very nature, a certain amount of guess work must inevitably come in. It must, however, be noted that there is no evidence of any loss of earnings by the claimants on account of his injuries inasmuch as he was an Assistant Executive Engineer at the time of the accident and it was admitted by his counsel at the bar that he had since been promoted to the rank of an Executive Engineer. Be that as it may, taking an over-all view of the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by the claimant, the pain and suffering caused to him thereby and the permanent disfigurement and impairment of the vision, which he is now left with, as also the medical expenses besides the amount reimbursed that the claimant must have incurred in the course of his treatment, he must indeed be held entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation.

In the result, the compensation payable to the claimant-Gobind Raj Mehta is hereby enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- while that awarded to the widow and children of Sohan Lal Kamra is up-held and affirmed. Both sets of claimants shall, however, be entitled to the amounts 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 amounts awarded.

The driver of the Haryana Roadways Bus and the State of Haryana shall be jointly and severally liable for the compensation awarded.

All the appeals are consequently accepted in the manner and to the extent indicated above. The claimants shall be entitled to their costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500/-.