BHUPENDRA MULJIBHAI SHAH Vs. KHAN TRANSPORT CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 1, 43,000.00 for injury. That award was not challenged by the Respondent but the Petitioner filed appeal for the further amount of Rs. 1,16,000.00 on the head of the brain injury. The matter was remanded and after further evidence the Tribunal did not award anything on this head. He therefore filed appeal His Lordship after stating facts and discussing evidence further observed:

(2.) The question that now arises is as to what could be awarded to the claimant on the count of pain shock and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life considering that in addition to his aforesaid functional disability found by Dr. Nagpal he has also a permanent disablement flowing from his brain injury as stated hereinabove. In this connection no decision either of the Supreme Court or that of any other High Court of our country has been brought to our notice wherein a similar question had received attention. In the absence of the same we will need to look into whether similar cases have been dealt with by English Courts. A scrutiny in this connection has shown that such questions have been dealt with by English Courts as per the following tabular statement: Table showing relevant English awards covering the head of pain shock and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life in the cases of injured persons who suffer from epilepsy as well as some other permanent disablements Sr. Year Age of Awarded Details regarding Remarks No. Of victim amount nature of injuries & assessment at the date suffered Reference of accident All the cases from KEMP & KEMP The Quantum of Damages Vol. 2 Publication date Aug. 31 1979 1. 1966 Exact age not stated * 8,000 Young man received head injury - after the injury headaches and two major blackouts - sedative drugs stopped the major blackouts and reduced the headaches - forgetful and also experiencing non-existent unpleasant smells - 50/50 chance of major epilepsy developing - Trial judges award not interfered with by the Court of Appeal. 2. 1968 44 * 4,000 Male - Maintenance fitter - Fractured skull resulting in tendency to epilepsy - In hospital 3 weeks and off work about another month- 14 months later suffered major epileptic fit later followed by another fit -If went off drugs would run risk of further attacks. ELDERFIELD V. GRIT ABATERS LTD. 3-402 PAGE 3401 3. 1969 23 or 24 * 12,000 including agreed special damages of * 1,000 Male fork-lift truck driver - head injuries to both knees - either 2 or 4 years after the accident he began ever since but with less frequency - permanent pain in both knees - limitation of movement especially the right knee - held fit to do light work. BOOTH V. OHALLORAN 3-311 PAGE 3311 4. 1969 21 * 6,000 Unmarried woman - bank clerk sustained head injuries -6 days in hospital - Not long afterwards she suffered a major epileptic attack of the grand mal type which involved convulsions- followed by several lesser attacks- persistent headaches - fits regarded as felit mal and not grand mal - Court of Appeal held trial judges award was clearly within the bracket JONES V. GRIFFITH 3-314 PAGE 3313 5. 1970 Exact Age not stated * 2,500 Healthy young woman - hit her forehead on the dashboard of a car involved in a motor accident - Unconscious for a short time immediately afterwards - Developed head aches and dizziness - 5 months after the accident became subject to minor seizures - Conflicting medical evidence- epilepsy not established on the balance of probabilities possibility of further seizures - general damages awarded NOKES V. DAVIES 3-316 PAGE 3314 6. 1972 31 * 5,250 and agreed special damages of *988 Male - Carpenter - fractured skull with associated bilateral brain damage fractured jaw - developed post-traumatic epilepsy - no epileptic fits since about 7 months after accident - in early stages had two major fits - so long as continued with drugs was unlikely to have further fits - Per curiam: case called for substantial award but not on scale of those cases involving epilepsy which was not likely to be fully controllable in future. CRAWFORD V. BLOFELD 3-401 PAGE 3401

(3.) The aforesaid table shows that epilepsy is regarded as a serious type of infirmity. Even where medical evidence was conflicting and epilepsy had not been established on probabilities * 2 533 have been awarded considering the possibility of future seizures. As per the table the range of damages is from * 2 500 to * 11 0 dependent upon the gravity and the frequency of attacks and the circumstances of the case. Age is also a relevant and material consideration. The table further reveals that when accompanied by another permanent disablement damages are awarded on a higher scale. Petit mal and grand mal are types of epileptic attacks which by and large have general recognition.