SHASHI VERMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is at the instance of a workman aged 35 years who suffered a privation of right arm from the shoulder. He was a passenger in the State Transport bus and the injuries were attributed to a collision between the Transport bus and a truck coming from the opposite direction. The argument in defence was that there was a scooter going ahead of the bus and he was overtaking a two wheeler when the truck coming from the opposite direction came too close to the bus and chopped off the right hand of the claimant. If at all only the truck driver was responsible and in any event the claimant herself ought to take responsibility for the accident because she was negligently keeping her hand outside. This argument in defence was accepted by the Tribunal and hence appeal. I discard the defence and find the reasoning of the Tribunal to be wholly erroneous. A driver of the public transport ought to know that persons in the bus have to be transported safely. It ought to be responsibility of the driver and conductor to warn passengers to keep their hands inside and it will be sheer negligence of a conductor if he cannot keep vigil and not warn the passengers. Warning for keeping hands inside ought to be strictly followed, unless there was a case where the passenger was deliberately defiant and would not heed to the words of caution. I will not take an argument that a person that comes by harm while travelling as a passenger must take the consequences of an accident that had caused a privation of the arm. The driver of the vehicle must be so careful that he allows for a sufficient gap between any vehicle coming from the opposite side.

(2.) Taking this to be a case of composite negligence between the driver of the bus and the driver of the truck coming from opposite direction, no part of the claim could have been defeated. The dismissal of the petition was wholly erroneous. I will find the driver of the bus has contributed to the accident and make the State vicariously liable for the same.

(3.) The accident had taken place on 9.11.1989. She had been admitted in the hospital and took the treatment for nearly a month up to 14.12.1989. The doctor who had treated her and who gave evidence has certified the loss of disability at 85%. I would quantify the value of house holder's service in the year 1989 at Rs. 2,500/- and take the disability of 85% as constituting a like loss of earning capacity. I will adopt a multiplier of 16 and take the loss of earning capacity at Rs. 4,08,000/-. I will also provide for loss of amenities for a woman who had lost her right hand who ought to suffer therefore for the rest of her life of having to carry out house hold chores without the dominant hand. The pain and suffering must also be adequately provided. I will provide for hospital charges, attendant charges and special diet at Rs. 2,500/- each and provide the amount of Rs. 12,500/- towards medicines although details are not produced before the Court. The over all compensation is tabulated as under:-