AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Pachhapure, J.—The appellants have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court in the appeal filed by the respondents and reducing the compensation awarded by the trial Court. The facts relevant for the purpose of these appeals are as under:
The parties will be referred as per their rank before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs, whereas the respondents are the defendants in the suits instituted in O.S. Nos. 74 and 76 of 2005. That on 25.12.2002 at about 7.00 a.m. when the plaintiffs were near the water tap situated near their house due to the cut off of the electric wire which had fallen down, the plaintiffs came in contact with the said live wire and suffered burns and thereby they were taken to the hospital for treatment and had to incur medical expenses, food, nourishing etc., They suffered permanent disability. The right hand of the plaintiff in the first suit was amputated and as she was a earning member and had suffered permanent disability, was not in a position to do any work. In the circumstances she has sought for compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest and costs.
In the other suit the plaintiff was aged approximately about 10 years at the time of accident and the parents had to incur medical expense. He suffered permanent disability to an extent of 60% and he was vegetable vendor at that time and earning Rs. 500/- per month. Due to disability he was not able to earn his livelihood and hence claimed compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest and costs.
The defendants who are common in both the suits filed written statement denying negligence on their part and contended that it was due to the negligence of the plaintiffs that this incident occurred. They also denied the quantum of compensation claimed, medical expenses, income etc. and sought for dismissal of the suits.
On the basis of these pleadings the trial Court framed issues in both the suits and permitted the parties to lead their evidence.
In the former suit the plaintiff examined herself as P.W. 1, two witnesses P.Ws. 2 and 3 and got marked the documents Exs. P1 to P7. On behalf of the defendants D.W. 1 was examined. So also in the other suit the plaintiff examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and got marked the documents Exs. P1 to P8. The defendant examined D.W. 1.
The trial Court after hearing the counsel and appreciation of the evidence on record granted compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. in the former suit, whereas, in the other suit had granted compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a.. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendants preferred R.A. Nos. 124 and 125 of 2007. The first appellate Court has allowed the appeals partly and reduced the compensation to Rs. 62,000/- with interest at 6% to the plaintiff in the former suit and Rs. 60,000/- with interest at 6% in the suit instituted by the minor, the plaintiff in the other suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decrees of the Courts below the present appeals have been filed.
At the time of admission the following substantial questions of law are raised:
In RSA No. 469/09:
When the trial Court on the basis of the evidence and the material placed on record held that the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-, whether the first appellate Court was justified in reducing the compensation decreed and thereby committed a grave injustice by ignoring the principles of awarding compensation and thereby committed illegality in the impugned judgment and decree?
In RSA 470/2009:
When the trial Court on the basis of the evidence and the material placed on record held that the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-, whether the first appellate Court was justified in reducing the compensation decreed and thereby committed a grave injustice by ignoring the principles of awarding compensation and thereby committed illegality in the impugned judgment and decree?
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the trial Court was right in granting compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- respectively for the plaintiffs in both the suits and the first appellate Court without considering the norms regarding the payment of compensation, modified the judgment and decrees of the trial Court by ignoring the principles of awarding compensation. Hence, he submits that the judgment and decrees of the first appellate Court in both the appeals will have to be set aside.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supporting the judgment and decrees of the first appellate Court contends that the first appellate Court has deducted a sum of Rs. 75,000/- which was paid initially and the first appellate Court was justified in giving deduction to it. He submits that the compensation awarded by the first appellate Court is just and reasonable.
The plaintiff in O.S. No. 74/2005 was aged about 40 years at the time of incident. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that there was negligence on the part of the defendant in not taking care of the live electric wire, it was cut off due to heavy rains on the earlier day. Therefore, there is no necessity for this Court to consider the question of negligence.
So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned it is relevant to note that the plaintiff has suffered burns on her right hand and in the course of the treatment her right hand up to the shoulder was amputated whereby she has lost her right hand due to the incident in question and it is in the evidence of the doctor that she is not able to do any work in future.
Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact and the permanent disability that she has to suffer all along in her life, it has to be considered at 80%. So far as her income is concerned, she has claimed Rs. 3,000/- per month. The incident is of the year 2002. Taking into consideration the daily wages of workman in those days, the interest of justice will be met in case if the income per month is considered at Rs. 3,000/-. As she has suffered 80% permanent disability, by taking income at Rs. 2,400/- per month and adopting the multiplier ''15'', the loss of income itself would come to Rs. 4 lakhs and odd. In addition she was entitled to compensation for pain and sufferings, mental agony, medical expenses etc. If this principle of awarding compensation in respect of the injury sustained are taken into consideration, even after deducting the sum of Rs. 75,000/- which was paid by the defendant before the institution of the suit, the compensation payable to the appellant would be more than Rs. 3,00,000/- and it is for this reason the trial Court has granted compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest and costs.
The approach of the first appellate Court is erroneous for the reason that, by taking the income at Rs. 2,000/- per month, it has granted loss of future income and thereby committed a grave injustice by reducing the compensation to Rs. 62,000/- after deducting the sum of Rs. 75,000/- which was already paid by the defendants before institution of the suit. In my opinion, this approach of the first appellate Court reducing the compensation is improper for the reason that the plaintiff has suffered permanent disability, she has lost her right hand and therefore the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court will have to be upheld.
The plaintiff in O.S. No. 76/2005 was aged about 10 years at the time of the incident. As could be seen from the medical evidence of P.W. 3 Dr. Mohan, the plaintiff has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 60%. This permanent disability has not been taken into consideration by the first appellate Court. Though he was a boy aged about 10 years at time of incident all along his life, he has to suffer this disability. It is because of this reason, considering the disability at 60%, the trial Court has granted compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-, but the first appellate Court has granted compensation for pain and sufferings, mental agony, loss of amenities and medical expenses. It did not bestow its attention towards loss of future income and the permanent disability that has been suffered by the plaintiff. Therefore, the approach of the first appellate Court in reducing the compensation is improper. Even considering the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- and adopting multiplier ''15'', the compensation towards loss of income itself is Rs. 2,25,000/-. In addition to compensation, the plaintiff is also entitled for pain and suffering, mental agony, medical expenses, loss of amenities, loss of income during the period of treatment etc. So, the trial Court having taken into consideration all these aspects as granted compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- in additional to the sum of Rs. 75,000/- which was paid by the defendants before institution of the suit. Therefore, the approach of the first appellate Court was erroneous and illegal. Consequently, the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court requires to be set aside by restoring that of the trial Court. Hence, the substantial question of law in both the appeals '' are answered in negative. Consequently, the appeals are allowed with costs. The judgment and decrees of the first appellate Court in both these appeals are set aside and that of the trial Court are restored.
Counsel is permitted to file fee memo in the office within 15 days from today.