Prem Nath vs Punjab State and others

D.S. Tewatia, J.—This appeal arises out of an application for compensation by the appellant u/s 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939, (Act IV of 1939).

The applicant-appellant met with an accident on 25th June, 1963 at about 11.15 a.m. with the Punjab Roadways Bus No. PNE. 8436 near Tagore Theatre in Chandigarh Town. The applicant-appellant claimed Rs. 50,000 as damages. However, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, awarded him only Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for the loss of earning at the rate of Rs. 50/- p.m. taking the applicant''s life expectancy as 60 years. It also awarded, Rs. 801/25 Raise towards the medical expenses. The applicant, being dissatisfied with the abovesaid compensation awarded to him, has come up in appeal to this Court.

The solitary point argued, and which falls for decision in this case, is as to whether the Tribunal awarded the appellant an adequate compensation.

Mr. R.M. Suri, learned counsel for the appellant, has urged that the Tribunal ought to have--

(i) fixed the appellant''s life expectancy at 70 years instead of 60 years;

(ii) fixed the loss of monthly earning as a result of the accident to atleast Rs. 300/- p.m. and

(iii) award the compensation for loss of expectation of life and compensation for pain and suffering, as also compensation for loss of happiness in life as a result of the accident in question.

After hearing the learned counsel on both the sides. I am of the opinion that the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant merits consideration.

As for the life expectancy, the consensus of the judicial opinion is that it would be taken to be 70 years Shiv Prasad Gupta v. S.M. Sabir Suidi 1967 ACJ 331, Gomathi Ammal and Others Vs. Ramchandran Pillai and Another and Jaswant Kaur and Others Vs. Ratti Ram and Others, , are some of the decisions in point.

Mr. Satish Sibal appearing for the State of Punjab has frankly conceded that the life expectancy has to be taken, in view of the various decisions of the different High Courts, including the a hove, at 70 years.

Now coming to the question as to what is the loss of earning to the appellant as a result of the accident, I notice that the divergence in the stands taken by the counsel on both the sides are irreconciliable. While the learned counsel for the respondent State contended that, in fact, the Tribunal in fixing the loss of monthly earning to Rs. 50/- p.m. had been rather too favourable to the appellant, the learned counsel for the appellant on the contrary urged that the Tribunal was not at all justified in fixing the monthly earning of the appellant at Rs. 100/- p.m. and then holding that since the impairment of efficiency as a result of the accident was to the extent of 50 per cent so the monthly loss of earning to the appellant would be Rs. 50/- p.m. It may be shied here that while determining the monthly earning of the appellant, the Tribunal took into consideration the income tax return filed by the appellant for the year 1962-63 and the number of persons working in the shop of the appellant. The income tax return for the year in question shoves Rs. 6,000/- as the earning of the shop, in which, apart from the appellant, his three sons and two labourers, were employed. The tribunal came to the conclusion that to earn the abovesaid amount all the persons must have contributed their mite and fixed the share of the appellant at Rs. 100/- p.m. and that amount the Tribunal thus termed the monthly earning capacity of the appellant.

I am of the view that the Tribunal has not taken all the facts into consideration while arriving at the above conclusion regarding the monthly earning capacity of the appellant. The appellant is a photographer and runs a photography shop, in which at the relevant time he had employed two servants, one of his son was helping him and other two sons were learning photography from his other son and from him. It is also on the record that during the year following the accident the earning of that shop fell from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 1603/33 Paise. The appellant claimed this steep fall in the earning from the said shop to his incapacity as a result of the accident When the appellant and his son appeared in the witness-box, they were not cross-examined to show that other factors contributed to the fall of their income from the shop and hence while making some allowance for other factors that may have contributed towards the lowering of their income, the loss of income from the shop, to a large extent, has to be attributed to the appellants being rendered inefficient by the accident. Since what the appellant may have been contributing towards the earning from the shop has to be at best speculative, in the circumstances of this case it will be fair to hold that the appellant must have been contributing about Rs. 200/- p.m. towards the earnings from the shop Since the extent of the impairment of his efficiency as a result of the accident has not been contested before me by either side, so taking the impairment of efficiency at 50 per cent, as held by the Tribunal, the loss of the earning as a result of the accident would corns to Rs. 100/- p.m. The age of the appellant at the time of the accident was determined by the Tribunal to be 55 years on the basis of the evidence of the doctor, who is a disinterested person, and I too do not propose to differ from that assessment. Hence taking the age of the appellant to be 55 years, the compensation for loss of earning under this head works out to be Rs. 18,000/-.

As regards the compensation for pain and suffering, shortening of expectancy of life and for loss of happiness in life, a perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that it has ignored these aspects of the case altogether. It is evident from the medical evidence that the appellant sustained the fracture of his skull, as also of ribs, apart from sustaining other injuries. Obviously, he must have undergone a lot of pain and agony as he remained indoor patient for 22 days. Hence I am of the option that the appellant is entitled to the payment of Rs. 5,000/- to compensate him for the pain and suffering, although no amount of | monetary compensation can really be considered adequate.

As regards shortening of expectancy of life as a result of the accident, one has to take into consideration the seriousness of the injuries suffered in the accident. In the present case, Dr. S.R. De AW 4, found as many as 11 injuries on the person of the appellant, some of them resulting in the fracture of skull and ribs. As a result of such serious, injuries the subject is hound to suffer certain amount of loss of health resulting in shortening of his life expectancy. I am of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to Rs. 1,000/- as compensation under this head.

Since the accident has impaired the efficiency and the earning capacity of the appellant by disturbing his mental equilibrium and the power of concentration, as also by shortening his memory, so it will be fair to assume that the loss of memory, power of concentration and alertness of mind would render the remaining period of his life rather unhappy and less enjoyable. Therefore, I am of the opinion that he requires to be compensated for that also. 1 think, Rs. 1,000/- under this head to be an adequate compensation.

The learned counsel for the appellant also urged that the compensation towards the medical expenses also deserved to be increased.

I do not think I can agree with him here. The Tribunal has awarded to the appellant Rs. 500/-towards the medical expenses, in addition to the expenses that he established by producing receipts The learned counsel for the appellant has not bean able to show from the record the inadequacy of the amount so fixed by the Tribunal. It may be stated here that the appellant had been treated all the time in the Government hospitals and it was not difficult for him to maintain an account of the expenses, as also to get receipts for the payments made by him. I, therefore, hold that the Tribunal has rightly fixed Rs. 801/25 Paise as the compensation towards the madical expenses.

In view of my above findings, the total amount of compensation under the various heads works out to Rs. 25,801/25 Paise and hence I hold that the appellant is entitled to the payment of that amount.

Before parting with the case, it is necessary in this case to decide as to which of the respondents before me is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the appellant.

This case came up for hearing before me earlier on 25th March 1971. At that time, the counsels for the States of Punjab and Haryana urged that it is the Union Territory of Chandigarh which is liable to pay the amount of compensation and since the Union Territory of Chandigarh was not impleaded as a party to the appeal, I ordered the appellant to implead the Union Territory of Chandigarh as one of the respondents. He complied with my order and a notice was duly served on the Union Territory of Chandigarh. However, in spite of being duly served with a notice, none appears for the Union Territory of Chandigarh.

The learned Counsel for the States of Punjab and Haryana have urged that it is the Union Territory of Chandigarh which is liable to pay the amount of compensation for the accident to the appellant. In this connection, they made reference to section 60 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1965 (Act No. 31 of 1966) which reads as under:--

Where, immediately before the appointed day, the existing State of Punjab is subject to any liability in respect of an actionable wrong other than breach of contract, that liability shall,--

(a) if the cause of action arose wholly within the territories which ON and from that day are the territories of one of the successor States be a liablity of that successor State ; and

(b) in any other case, be initially a liability of the State of Punjab, but subject to such financial adjustment as may be agreed upon between all the successor States concerned, or in default of such concerned, or in default of such agreement, as the Central Government may be order direct.

Even a cursory perusal of the provisions of section 60 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, leaves no scope for any doubt that if an accident occurred living rise to an actionable claim before 1st November 1966 in the Union Territory of Chandigarh, the liability to satisfy the claim will be entirely that of the Government of the Union Territory of Chandigarh. Hence I hold that the appellant will be entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the Union Territory of Chandigarh, respondent No. 5.

For the reasons stated above, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above with costs.