P.G. HARI Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL, INDIAN COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two appeals against the judgment and the decree in O.S. No. 33 of 1976 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kasaragad. A.S. No. 14 of 1980 is by the plaintiff and A.S. No. 18 of 1980 is by the defendants. We shall refer to the parties in accordance with their array in the suit.

(2.) THE plaintiff was a minor aged 5 years at the time of the suit. He filed the suit for realisation of a sum of Rs. 60,000/- by way of damages and expenses incurred by him on account of a bus accident. The bus KLC 6218 stood registered in the name of the second defendant and its ownership vested in the first defendant. The 3rd defendant was the driver of the bus and the 4th defendant was the Insurance Company with whom the bus had been insured for third party risk and covering the vehicle against all accidents. The accident took place on 16-7-1974. According to the plaintiff, the 3rd defendant was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The plaintiff who was standing on the eastern edge of the road, which runs north-south, was knocked down as a result of which he fell down and the tyres of the bus overran his body crushing him in the process. The plaintiff sustained injuries, external and internal, for which he had to be treated for long in hospital. He had to undergo operations. But he was not completely cured. It was disclosed that there was a rupture of the urethra and complications arose in the matter of urinal functions. Apart from this serious injury, which has caused handicap and hardship to the plaintiff, he had also suffered mental shock, pain and bodily injury. Even now the plaintiff is not able to carry on a normal life. He has been crippled for life and has to be under constant treatment. It is in these circumstances that the suit was laid for recovery of Rs. 60,000/- as damages.

(3.) THE lower court dealt with the matter at great length. The entire evidence was discussed. The court came to the conclusion that the incident alleged by the plaintiff was true. The lower court also found that the defendants are liable for the suit claim. The court then went into the question whether the claim for Rs. 60,000/- under various heads was justified. This matter was also gone into in the light of the decisions of the various courts. Ultimately the court found that the plaintiff could be expected to earn Rs. 150/- per month, and calculated at this rate for 30 years, he was entitled to damage of Rs. 54,000/- for loss of anticipated earnings. Since the amount was being paid in lump in advance the court fixed the damages payable under this head at Rs. 40,000/-. The court also allowed Rs. 7,088-44 as expenses for treatment, Rs. 5,000/- for mental shock, strain and physical discomfort, Rs. 5.C00/- for sufferings due to pain and Rs. 10,000/- for loss of pleasure and happiness in life. The total compensation thus awarded was Rs. 67,088-44, out of which the court deducted Rs. 2,100/- received from the second defendant by way of medical reimbursement as evidenced by Ext. S6 file of the second defendant. A decree was thus passed for the said amount with costs. It may be noted that while the claim was for Rs, 60,000/- the award was of Rs. 67,088-44 less Rs. 2,100/- received from the second defendant. The court however, did not award any future interest on this amount. We find that there is not even an advertence to this aspect.