PRAVINCHANDRA JIVRAJ MEHTA Vs. LALBHAI MELABHAI VASAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Now we have to consider the question of awarding adequate compensation to the claimant on the head of pain. shock and suffering and loss of amenities in life which the severe accidental head injury had left on the claimant. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant who had suffered such injury should be awarded the conventional amount of Rs. 3 0 as just and reasonable compensation. We find that the aforesaid award of the Tribunal is grossly inadequate and it is far below the line drawn by the decided cases which had to deal with similar question especially the cases which came up for consideration before the English courts. Before we proceed to deal with the question of assessment of proper damages on the head of pain shock and suffering in the light of the peculiar injuries suffered by the claimant it would be a profitable to have a look at the settled legal position on this aspect.

(2.) In first Appeal No. 822 of 1974 and group decided by learned brother P. D. Desai J. and R. C. Mankad J. on 18/19/20-3-1980 Ahmedabad Muni. corpn. v. Niranjan Ambalal Patel 23(2) G.L.R. 180) and to which we have made a detailed reference earlier this court had an occasion to consider the question regarding grant of proper damages under the head of pain shock and suffering when the injured claimant had suffered severe injuries on different parts of his body including his eye. While considering this question my learned brother speaking for the Division Bench in terms observed:

(3.) In first Appeal No. 619 of 1978 decided on 23/06/1980 (Ashish Jivrajbhai v. Ashwinbhai Himatlal 23(2) G.L.R. 290) by a Division Bench consisting of my learned brother sitting with R. C. Mankad J. had again to deal with the question regarding awarding of proper damages under the head of pain shock and suffering caused to a young victim aged about 7 at the time of the accident who was left with serious multiple injuries one of which was brain injury which had resulted in spastic hemiplegia. The victim in that case had suffered various external injuries and internal injury on the brain. He was knocked down by a motorcycle when he was proceedings on foot towards his school. The internal injury sustained by him on the brain rendered him unconscious immediately after the accident and he started bleeding from his left ear. His clinical examination at the hospital revealed that he did not respond to painful stimulus. His pupils were bilaterally semi-diluted and they reacted sluggishly. He remained unconscious for about 15 days after his admission and thereafter for a period of about 20 days he was semi-conscious. As he was experiencing difficulty in respiration he was operated upon on 18/07/1975 Another operation was performed upon him on 23/07/1975 for his brain injury. All throughout the period of his hospitalisation he suffered intense pain. When he was discharged from the hospital on 29/09/1975 the claimant was in the process of recovery though there was weakness or limbs. He was unable to walk and to speak properly. In the light of the aforesaid injuries suffered by victim Ashish in the aforesaid case with which this court was concerned my learned brother speaking for the Division Bench observed that the case before them was one in which the injuries sustained by the claimant had left in their trial tragic consequences lasting for the lifetime of the claimant. The brain injury has resulted in spastic hemiplegia. There was consequential weakness and loss of coordination of the upper and lower left limbs. It was also noticed that there was weakness of grip so far as the left hand was concerned and that the gait was not absolutely normal. It was further noted that the brain injury which led to abscess formation in the right eye had resulted in loss of vision and it had brought about disfigurement. There were permanent and irreversible consequences. It was further observed that the multiple injuries suffered by the claimant Ashish in that case had taken very heavy toll and the after effects were multiple. Not only the limbs but also the faculty of sight of the unfortunate victim of the accident were involved. Under these circumstances it was held by any learned brother in the aforesaid Division Bench decision that an integrated view of the totality of the after-effects of the manifold injuries must be taken so as to assess and award a lump sum compensation for the pain and suffering past present and future and for the lost pleasures and enjoyment of life. It was further observed that it was not proper to individually assess damages under the said head qua each injury and then to aggregate the same and make a cumulative award under this head There was a great risk of duplication in segregating and separately assessing compensation for the pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment flowing out of each injury. Only a total or overall view can insulate against overlapping. It would be permissible indeed necessary in some cases however to view each injury and to assess the consequential deprivation and then to estimate the totality of suffering pain and lost pleasures and comforts of life to arrive at a just compensation. Keeping in mind several circumstances of the case before them and taking an over-all view of the scale of pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life resulting from multiple injuries suffered by the injured victim Ashish this court awarded a global amount of Rs. 55 0 under the head of pain shock and suffering to the appellant in first appeal No. 619 of 1978. (23 (2) G.L.R. 290)