B.K. Somasekhara, J.
1. These two appeals are the product of the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khammam in O.P. No. 15 of 1989 dated 8.6.1990. They having common questions of law and facts are heard together and being disposed of by means of this common judgment as the convenience warrants.
2. The appellant in C.M.A. No. 755 of 1991 is the claimant whereas the appellants in C.M.A. No. 1281 of 1990 are the respondents in the claim petition filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act'). A claim was laid by the claimant for recovery of Rs. 1,75,000/-by way of compensation for the injuries allegedly suffered by him due to the motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by the respondent No. 1, driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus No. AEZ 1931 which occurred on 5.12.1988 at 9 p.m. near Dongachinthalu at Mincept Engineering Company, Khammam on Khammam- Anantharam road, while the claimant was driving the tractor-cum-trailer No. ATO 1771 and APH 8568. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the owners of the bus. Only the respondent No. 3 filed the written statement but not the other respondents. The resistance to the claim petition by controversies of the contesting respondent No. 3 has been with reference to the alleged negligence of the driver, respondent No. 1, in causing the accident, the quantum of compensation claimed and the real negligence on the part of the claimant himself in causing the accident.
3. Mrs. K. Vedavathi, learned advocate for the respondents, who argued the matter along with Mrs. A. Vyjayanthi, has added a further contention in C.M.A. No. 1281 of 1990 that the claimant did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident adding to his negligence in causing the accident. Mr. M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned advocate for the claimant, while supporting the award and the findings has questioned the adequacy of compensation given by the Tribunal in spite of the clear evidence and the findings in favour of the claimant both in regard to the injuries and the disability suffered by him. It must be said to the credit of both the advocates that their efforts in not sparing any pains to investigate into the matter have lent lot of assistance to this Court in disposing of the real controversies in these two appeals.
4. Admittedly, the accident occurred while the claimant was driving the tractor-cum-trailer No. ATO 1771 and APH 8568 and while the respondent No. 1 was driving the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus No. AEZ 1931. It is established that both the vehicles came into collision at one point or the other. The theory that the bus did not hit the tractor has been rightly disbelieved by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has found that the version of the respondent No. 1 driver in his testimony that the front right side tyre of the tractor hit the bus is not in conformity with the theory in the written statement and is not reliable. Adding to this, the respondent No. 1 did not report the fact of the accident to the police in spite of the statutory obligation to do it. On the other hand, one Vadde Narasimha Rao lodged the F.I.R. Exh. A. 1, before the police. He was one of the persons travelling in the tractor at the relevant time. It is also not on record in any form that the respondent No. 1 reported the matter to his official superiors in regard to the nature of the accident, cause of the accident or the negligence on the part of the claimant himself in causing the accident. The evidence in the case clearly discloses that the bus while driven in a rash manner by the respondent No. 1 dashed the tractor on a public road during night where the driver of the public transport is expected to be more careful and diligent than in ordinary circumstances. The contention that the tractor had only one light is also a later thought. The Tribunal has given adequate, convincing and cogent reasons in support of the finding that the accident was due to the negligence of the respondent No. 1 driver of the bus and not of the claimant while driving the tractor. The contention of Mrs. Vedavathi, learned advocate for the respondents, that the claimant did not possess valid driving licence also appears to be not supported by the earliest versions much less any materials. Even assuming that a person driving the vehicle does not possess a driving licence, or a valid driving licence that itself may not be sufficient to draw the inference of negligence. There may be many instances where persons not possessing the driving licence or valid driving licence may be capable of driving the vehicle or that merely because a person having no driving licence or valid driving licence drives a vehicle cannot be exonerated of his own negligence in driving the vehicle not to be diligent to avoid such an accident. If such an argument is accepted, the law will impliedly exonerate all such persons who cause the accident. That is not the spirit of the true implications of law while examining the plea of negligence. Moreover, in view of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, when once accident is established and when the driver of the vehicle takes upon himself the burden to prove want of negligence, in view of the presumption of negligence in driving the vehicle, the disproof of the same requires a better and strong proof and in the absence of that, such drivers cannot be exonerated of the consequences of tort-feasing conduct. The finding of negligence by the Tribunal as against the respondent No. 1 warrants no interference by this Court in appeal in view of the settled law by the Supreme Court in C.K. Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhi Kuttan Nair 1970 ACJ 110 (SC).
5. Since both the appeals involve the question of adequacy or inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the common discussion would dispose of the question. The finding in regard to the injuries suffered by the claimant due to the accident is not successfully assailed nor can be assailed. The testimony of the claimant in this regard has a strong support from the medical evidence. The proof is that he suffered three injuries, particularly stated in Exh. A. 3, viz. (1) a lacerated wound over the left side of the forehead (2) a lacerated wound over the left side of parietal region of the head, and (3) abrasion over the left side of cheek. The Tribunal has rightly found that the opinion in Exh. A. 3 is callously given as to the nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant in spite of the claimant suffering serious injuries, particularly to the left eye, which ultimately resulted in the loss of his total vision in the eye and the doctor who issued Exh. A. 3 has certified all the injuries to be simple in nature. The evidence of Civil Assistant Surgeon, P.W. 2, who issued the certificate Exh. A. 1, confirms that the claimant has no vision in the left eye. It is supported by other documents viz., Exh. A. 4, the certificate issued by the concerned Professor and the doctor in Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Exh. A. 5, certificate issued by Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, regarding which learned Tribunal has conclusively recorded the finding that the claimant not only lost his vision in the left eye but also became completely blind in so far as the left eye is concerned. Exhs. A. 13 to A. 16 are further documents which confirm such a situation. The finding of the Tribunal in this regard is not only based on sufficient evidence but also well reasoned which warrants no interference by this Court.
6. The Tribunal has found that the claimant was aged 28 years on the date of the accident, his income was Rs. 500/-p.m. and Rs. 10/- per day by way of batta and on this basis the loss of earnings was fixed at Rs. 300/- p.m. or Rs. 3,600/- per annum and with the multiplier the loss of income was fixed at Rs. 57,600/- and Rs. 10,000/- were added towards the pain and suffering, Rs. 5,000/- towards medical expenses and as a whole Rs. 72,600/- were awarded by way of compensation. Strictly speaking, the method of evaluating the compensation in an injury claim case by the Tribunal may not be scientific, much less satisfactory, although broadly stated certain items of compensation have been considered.
7. The Supreme Court and various High Courts in the country have laid down certain principles in regard to assessment of compensation in injury claim cases and to sum up, the items of compensation to be awarded in such personal injury claim cases may be broadly stated as follows:
(1) Shock, pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life;
(2) Injury itself, depending upon the disability, permanent, temporary, partial or complete;
(3) Medical and incidental expenses;
(4) Loss of income till the date of petition and from the date of petition till the date of award and future loss;
(5) Loss of earning capacity, having bearing on item No. 4;
(6) Shortened life expectancy;
(7) Loss of prospects of marriage, avocation, education, social, economical, cultural and political opportunities;
(8) Loss of beauty due to disfigurement;
(9) Disability, both physical, mental and social;
(10) Medical expenses towards future treatment, if any;
(11) Loss of property during the accident; and
(12) Any other item depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
[See R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. : [1995]1SCR75 ; S.A. Ghani v. K.A. Ponnen 1981 ACJ 269 (Karnataka); Prabhavati v. Anton Francis Nazareth 1981 ACJ 445 (Karnataka); H. Huchappa v. Anantharaman 1981 ACJ 20 (Karnataka); M.S. Rayta v. Gowrawwa Channabasappa 1987 ACJ 846 (Karnataka); and Basavaraj v. Shekhar 1987 ACJ 1022 (Karnataka)].
8. The comparable cases which are to be based to assess the compensation in a case like this also provide a proper guideline to assess the compensation. Learned advocate for the claimant, Mr. Rajamalla Reddy, has relied upon the decisions in Andhra Pradesh State Road Trans. Corporation v. G. Ramanaiah 1988 ACJ 223 (AP); Deepak Singha v. Himachal Road Trans. Corporation ; Jasbir Kaur v. State of Punjab ; and Rattanlal Mehta v. Rajinder Kapoor : 1996IAD(Delhi)552 ; in support of his contention that compensation in case of loss of eye cannot be less than Rs. 1,00,000 at the minimum and it should be more and adequate to justly compensate the claimant who suffered such an injury due to negligence of the tortfeasor like respondent No. 1. Mrs. K. Vedavathi, learned advocate for the respondents, has depended upon the decisions in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashokbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel : (1992)1GLR482 ; Savitri Sharma v. Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation 1993 ACJ 714 (MP); and Pradip Kotkar v. Sher Singh .
9. All the precedents supra deal with the injury to the eye and the loss of eye. In G. Ramanaiah's case 1988 ACJ 223 (AP), our own High Court while dealing with the items of compensation and other principles relating to the assessment of compensation in death cases and injury claim cases had an occasion to deal with the loss of both the eyes leading to mental wreck of a young man aged 23 years earning Rs. 500/- per mensem. It was held to be 100 per cent disability. It was further held that the injured in such a case is entitled to compensation for pecuniary losses such as (a) loss of earnings from the date of the accident (b) medical and travel expenses and special diet; and (c) expenses for attendant up to trial and in future and for non-pecuniary losses for pain, suffering and loss of expectation of life. For pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life and loss of expectation of life being a total wreck case, Rs. 50,000/- were awarded towards non-pecuniary losses and the remaining amount out of Rs. 2,03,640 were awarded towards pecuniary losses based on the evidence in the case. Similarly, in P. Satyanarayana v. I. Babu Rajendra Prasad 1988 ACJ 88 (AP), our own High Court by following the same method of assessment of compensation as in Ramanaiah's case 1988 ACJ 223 (AP), dealing with the loss of one eye, awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards non-pecuniary losses and the remaining sum of Rs. 1,58,900/-was awarded towards the pecuniary losses. Therefore, so far as this Court is concerned, both the method of assessment of compensation and the award of compensation for loss of eye can be taken as concluded, which in the opinion of this Court, is not beyond the settled principle of assessment of compensation as detailed above. Taking the guidance from such comparable cases, it can be stated safely that for the loss of both the eyes the normal compensation towards non-pecuniary losses should be at least Rs. 50,000/- and for the loss of one eye it should be at least Rs. 25,000/- but should be varied depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case depending upon the real consequences. With simple analogy from that, non-pecuniary damages or general damages in this case ought to be at least Rs. 25,000. In Satyanarayana's case 1988 ACJ 88 (AP), date of accident was 4.4.1979 whereas in Ramanaiah's case 1988 ACJ 223 (AP), the date of accident was 24.7.1978, and further the date of accident in the present case is 5.12.1988. There is a passage of time by almost a decade in between the dates of accidents covered by the above two rulings and the date of accident in this case. In Bhagawan Das v. Molul. Arif 1987 ACJ 1052 (AP), our own High Court dealt with the question of loss of money value each year based upon the consumer price index and has found that in India the real rate of interest would be 4 per cent per annum to be applied for conversion of future losses of earnings and the present value. Therefore, by adding 4 per cent per annum it would be 40 per cent for ten years. Therefore, by adding four per cent for each year, compensation of Rs. 25,000/- awarded in pre-1980s would be Rs. 35,000/- after passage of ten years. In other words, for the loss of both the eyes regarding the accident of pre-1990s and post-1980s Rs. 70,000/- should be awarded by way of non-pecuniary losses and for one eye it may be about Rs. 35,000/-. In Rattan Lai Mehta v. Rqjinder Kapoor : 1996IAD(Delhi)552 , a Division Bench of High Court of Delhi, to which Hon'ble Jagannadha Rao, Chief Justice of High Court of Delhi was one of the members of the Bench who rendered the above rulings supra, has adopted the same method of assessment of compensation except including one more item of compensation of Rs. 15,000/- towards the disfigurement which is not there in the above two precedents. In Jasbir Kaur's case , for the loss of one eyeball of a new born male child, which was totally gouged out due to negligence of hospital staff, Rs. 1,00,000 were awarded by way of global compensation. In Deepak Singha's case , for the loss of vision of the right eye in regard to a young man of 23 years age and a student of M.B.A., Rs. 37,500/-were awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life, and the remaining amounts out of Rs. 1,58,500/- were awarded towards the pecuniary losses. These comparable cases consistently evolved the compensation for loss of an eye by way of non-pecuniary damages to the extent of at least Rs. 35,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- as a global compensation.
10. Mrs. Vedavathi, learned advocate for the respondents, has her own say in the matter notwithstanding the comparable cases as above fixing the compensation as detailed above. She has shown from New India Assurance Co. case : (1992)1GLR482 , that for loss of vision of right eye and first degree burns over right side chest only Rs. 45,000/- were awarded towards pain, shock and suffering and further in Savitri Sharma's case 1993 ACJ 714 (MP), for the loss of vision of the left eye Rs. 25,000/- were awarded and again from Pradip Kotkar's case , she had tried to demonstrate that for 95 per cent loss of vision in the left eye, Rs. 25,000/- were awarded. Therefore, she has contended that these comparable cases have demonstrated that the maximum compensation that can be awarded for the loss of one eye cannot be more than Rs. 25,000/-. The contention no doubt has fortification from the precedents but by examining the facts and circumstances of those cases dealing with the accidents of different dates and the circumstances, they may not be a total guide to decide such a question. Even assuming that such comparable cases have provided a base line for assessing such compensation, they are patently 'per incuriam' when compared to the precedents of this Court which are followed by the Delhi High Court which dealing with the question in all detail has provided a scientific basis to assess the compensation. Moreover, these precedents are not in tune with the settled law that the compensation should be normally liberal and should be more in injury claim cases than in the death cases. In Harden Kaur v. Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corporation : [1992]2SCR272 , the Supreme Court has pointed out more than once that the determination of compensation must be liberal and the approach must also be liberal in assessing the compensation. Karnataka High Court in Basavaraj's case 1987 ACJ 1022 (Karnataka), referring to Supreme Court has cautioned that the amount of compensation so awarded should not be niggardly and at the same not a wind fall as a profit making venture through the Tribunals or the courts. It is pointed out therein that when compensation is awarded by the courts and the Tribunals even the tort-feasor should feel that he is atoned for the sin committed by him in committing the accident robbing the precious life of a human being and injuring an innocent person for no fault of his. The guidelines from such precedents are only to emphasise that if there are two precedents dealing with the same question of assessing the compensation, the one which has adopted a liberal approach should be adopted than the one which has adopted the conservative approach. Therefore, to conclude, this Court is of the considered view that not only from the cases of precedents of this Court but also from the other precedents relied upon by the learned advocate for the claimant, the approach of this Court in awarding the non-pecuniary damages for the loss of eye as detailed above should be adopted. Further more, from the rule of binding force of the very High Court, the view taken by this Court as above should prevail over the view taken by other High Courts in the precedents depended upon by the learned advocate for the respondents. To conclude on the question, this Court is of the firm view that for the total loss of vision of one eye, the non-pecuniary damages or general damages ought to be a minimum of Rs. 25,000/- for pre-1980 dated accidents and Rs. 35,000/- for post 1980 dated accidents and Rs. 45,000/- for post-1990 dated accidents as a tentative expression till it can be altered depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case. In other words, in this case Rs. 35,000/- should be awarded towards the general damages for the loss of total vision in the left eye of the claimant.
11. There is no reason to interfere with the finding regarding the medical and attendant expenses of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. But Rs. 10,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering separately may not be supported as it is included within the general damages which is detailed as above. Because if any compensation had been awarded for shock, pain and loss of amenities of life as has been detailed above, it would have been Rs. 10,000/-in this case in addition to Rs. 25,000/-towards general damages for the loss of one eye.
12. The finding relating to the loss of income in this case at Rs. 300/- p.m. or Rs. 3,600/- per annum cannot be varied in the absence of justifiable reasons. The age of the claimant was 28 years at the time of accident and for such an age, multiplier should be 14 as in the case of death and with such a multiplier and the multiplicand of Rs. 3,600/- the loss of income for the claimant should be Rs. 50,400/-. Now, by adopting the guideline of this Court in Ramanaiah's case 1988 ACJ 223 (AP) and similar cases, the loss of income under the head of pecuniary losses can be computed as hereunder:
(1) Loss of earnings fortwo years from dateof the accident till thedate of trial.(Rs. 300/- x 12 x 2) Rs. 7,200/-(2) Medical and incidentalexpenses including attendant charges Rs. 5,000/-(3) Loss of income byapplying themultiplier method Rs. 50,400/-(4) Expenses for attendant in future (Rs. 50/- x 12 x 14) Rs. 8,400/-(5) Towards non-pecuniary or general damages Rs. 35,000/-(6) Disfigurement due to loss of one eye Rs. 15,000/-_____________ Total : Rs. 1,21,000/-
Thus, the award of the Tribunal in regard to the quantum of compensation is inadequate and requires to be modified.
13. In the result, C.M.A. No. 1281 of 1990 is dismissed and C.M.A. No. 755 of 1991 is allowed. Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is set aside and modified to the effect that the claimant shall be entitled to recover Rs. 1,21,000/- with costs of the proceedings before it and simple interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. This shall be subject to depositing of amounts in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court in Susamma Thomas v. General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corporation : AIR1994SC1631 and U.P. State Road Trans. Corporation v. Trilok Chandra : (1996)4SCC362 . However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs in this Court.