K.P. Bhandari, J.
1. On 27th February 1981 at about 1.45 P. M. on G. T. Road, half a furlong from village Shamgarh on Delhi- Ambala G T. Road, a serious accident took place. Truck No. HRU 591 and Car No. PUV 6350 were involved in the accident. Mr. Inderjit Ohri, Under Secretary, Punjab Govt., Tarsem Lal, Maneet Maunder and other occupants of the car and the driver received serious injuries. The driver of the car died in the hospital later on. Kumari Maneet Maunder qualified MBBS doctor, at the time of accident, was working in the Government Medical College, Patiala and was getting a stipend of Rs. 450/-per month She was aged 22 years. In the accident her both legs were fractured and she received head injuries. On account of the accident she suffered paralysis of body and mental functions were impaired. She became permanently disabled She claimed a compensation of Rs. 7,50,000/-for the injuries sustained by her. The claim petition was contested by the respondents.
2. The Tribunal vide judgment/award dated 7th December, 1984 came to the conclusion that the accident resulted on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck-driver. The Tribunal further came to the conclusion that the truck struck against the car. The Tribunal allowed a compensation to the claimant-respondent amounting to Rs, 7,22,800/- against the respondents jointly and severally. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the liability of the Insurance Company was unlimited because no insurance policy was placed before it. The Tribunal considered the evidence of PW-7, Ram Sarup Lambardar of the village, Shamgarh, who has seen the accident, and PW-6 Ram Krishan, Sub Inspector.
3. Mr. Lalit Mohan Suri, counsel for the appellants strongly Contended that according to site plan Ex-PH. the truck and the car had been shown to be standing on the extreme left side of the road. He further contended that the truck was on the kacha pavement of the road. He further contended that the driver of the car was negligent.
4. I have considered the evidence on record. There is nothing to show that the truck was on the kacha path. Rather it is in the evidence of PW-6 Ram Kishan Sub Inspector that after the accident, the truck had dragged the car towards Delhi. The site plan Ex. PH clearly indicates that the accident had taken place on the left side of the road, if one goes from Delhi to Ambala. In this way, the truck has caused accident by going on the wrong side. Thereafter the truck dragged the car upto some distance and took the car upto some distance towards Delhi, if one goes from Delhi to Ambala. This is indicated in the site plan Ex. PH. Mr. Suri also challenged the correctness of the evidence of PW-7 Ram Sarup but I am afraid Ram Sarup is a Lambardar of the village who had seen the accident and is not in any way interested in the claimant. His evidence is very natural, After considering the evidence on record and going through the finding recorded by the Tribunal, I do not find any ground to differ with the view taken by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the truck. The truck driver went on the wrong side and struck against the care.
5. Mr. Lalit Mohan Suri also argued that the driver of the car was negligent and the accident has been caused due to contributory negligence. The evidence on record does not show that the driver of the car was negligent. I have no hesitation in rejecting this argument. In this view of the matter, the findings on issues No. 1, to 4 recorded by the Tribunal are confirmed.
6. While considering the evidence on issue No. 4, regarding quantum of compensation allowed amounting to Rs. 7,22,800/-, PW-9 Rajinder Singh, father of the claimant Miss Maneet Marunder, appeared in the witness box and deposed that she has qualified her MBBS in January 1981 and at the time of accident, she was doing her internship in Government Medical College, Patiala. He further deposed that she was getting Rs. 550/-per month as stipened. He has further stated that she after completing her internship, would have joined as a House Surgeon and would have got Rs. 700/- per month. Further after completing her house job for one year, she would have easily got about Rs. 2,000/- per month and after doing specialization, her emoluments would have been in between Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. He further stated that her memory became weak as she was unable to remember the past events and could speak very little with great difficulty. Her speech was slurred and she could neither stand nor walk and a permanent attendant is required to help her to do her routine work.
7. PW 8 Dr. A. K. Mahpatra, Department of Neuro Surgery of All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi, appeared in the witness box and stated that the respondent was admitted in the Neuro Surgery Department on 28.2.1981. She sustained injuries on account of accident. She had permanent paralysis on the right side of the leg and hand. As a result of accident, she had memory disturbance, low intelligence quotient. She had also speech disturbance and loss of vision in the right half of the field of vision. He further deposed that her disabilities were of permanent nature and she was not likely to recover from these disabilities She would need an attendant throughout her life as she could not dress herself and could not ease herself and she require a permanent medication. He further stated that her parents would have to spend Rs. 1,000/- per month for her maintenance and this would increase in the coming years on account of the inflation. He further stated that she will not be able to adopt profession of a doctor throughout her life.
8. PW-3 Dr. R. N. Gupta, Chief Hospital Superintendent, Central Hospital of Northern Railway, has also deposed about the condition of the respondent-claimant. He has also described her condition very bad. Dr. J. K. Chaudhary, Chief Surgeon of the same hospital, appeared as PW-2 and deposed that a disability of the claimant-respondent was 100 per cent. Admittedly, according to the evidence on record, the claimant-respondent was 22 years of age at the time of accident. She had qualified MBBS and was to adopt the profession of a doctor but as a result of accident the respondent has been deprived of the opportunity to engage herself in the medical profession. There is thus complete loss of income to the respondent on account of the accident. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that at the time of accident, the respondent was getting Rs. 450/- per month as stipened and after completing her housejob, she could have easily got Rs. 2,000/- per month. The Tribunal adopted the loss of income to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month and applying the multiplier of 16, worked out the compensation on account of loss of earning to the respondent as Rs. 3,84,0.00/-. It may be noted that on the request of counsel for the respondent, commission was appointed by this Court to examine the doctors who treated the respondent. Shri Sanjay Majithia, Advocate was appointed as Commissioner, who has recorded the statements of the doctors, who treated her. They have deposed before the commissioner that the disability of the respondent is of a permanent nature and she has not improved. There is no manner of doubt that the respondent is an unfortunate in her prime of life having qualified MBBS deprived of the medical profession. The income adopted by the Tribunal as Rs. 2,000/-per month is highly on the lower side .
9. The counsel for the appellants, Mr. Suri, strongly contended that loss of income adopted by the Tribunal at the rate of Rs. 2,000/-per month is much higher side
10. I am of the view that the Tribunal has taken the figure of Rs. 2,000/- per month as the loss of earning on grossly inadequate. At this stage, I may consider the fact that after completion of House Job, the initial pay of the claimant-respondent would have been Rs. 2,000/- per month but with the passage of time, she would have earned higher. Now-a-days a new entrant of medical profession after completion of house-job, could earn Rs. 4,000/- per month So I therefore, cannot accept the submission of the counsel for the appellant that the criteria adopted as Rs. 2000/- per month by the Tribunal is on the higher side.
11. It is important to note that the Tribunal did not appreciate that the claimant-respondent at the time of accident was of 22 years of age The pay of Rs. 2000/- per month which has been adopted as basis for awarding compensation is of a salary of a fresher. The doctors are placed in regular pay scales. They earn increment on their regular salary. They are also entitled to Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance. The normal age for retirement of a doctor is 58 years After retirement, the doctor can engage himself in the private practice. The respondent-claimant was 22 years at the time of accident. She would have served normally for 36 years and that in the end of 36 years, she will attain the age of 58 years. The basis for determining the compensation is very much on the lower side and the multiplier is too inadequate. There is inflation all around. The award with this multiplier of 16 is insufficient to compensate her.
12. The respondent has filed cross objections and in the cross objection, in my opinion, at least a multiplier of 20 should be allowed to somewhat compensate the respondent-claimant. In JoginderKaur v. State of Haryana , (1991-1) 99 P. L. R. 49. N. C Jain, J, held that in the case of a professional young man. a multiplier of 20 can always be given. In Smt. Usha Soni & others v. State of' Haryana , (1989-2) 96 P. L. R. 541. S.S. Sodhi. J. held that in case of professional men, like doctor, their span of gainful employment extends beyond the normal date of retirement of those in service, in that they can continue doing professional work till as long as they are physically capable of doing so. Keeping in view this aspect, alongwith the age and other circumstances, the appropriate multiplier, in the said case, was applied to be 20. In Smt. Urmila Devi v. Baljii Singh , (1989-1) 95 P. L. R. 562. A. L. Bahri, J. applied a multiplier of 20 Recently, the Supreme Court in Hardeo Kaur v. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation and anr., (1992-1) A, C. J. 300 S. C. Kuldip Singh, J. observed that in the matter of determination of quantum of compensation, the Courts must be liberal where life and limb in generous scales are involved, and the Supreme Court applied a multiplier of 24.
13. Considering all aspects of the matter, I think atleast a minimum multiplier of 20 should be applied in this case to give some relief to the respondent-claimant.
14. The claimant has also in the cross-objections prayed that she be allowed Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for medical expenses. The Tribunal, according to her, has allowed less compensation. Considering the prolonged illness of respondent-claimant and there being no hope of recovery of the disability being 100 per cent, I think prayer for increase in medical expenses to the extent of Rs. 50.000/ is very reasonable and I allow the same. I am not, however, inclined to allow the prayer for increase of the salary of the attendant from Rs., 400/- to Rs. 5000/- pm.
15. No other point was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant.
16. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal granting compensation in all other respects is confirmed.
17. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the appellants and dismiss the same with costs.
18. As regards the cross-objection of the respondent-claimant, the same are allowed. I modify the aware of the Tribunal and apply a multiplier of 20 and direct the compensation to be calculated in that manner. Further, I also modify the award of the Tribunal to the effect that the respondent-claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 50,000/- for medical expenses. The cross-objections are allowed with costs. The claimant will be entitled to interest at the rate of 15 per cent in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rukmani Devi v. Om Parkash, 1991 A.C.J. 3 from the date of application till its payment. I also followed the judgment of Rukmani Devi's case (supra) in Mala Aggarwal v. Jagdish Kumar.,(1991-2) 100 P.L.R. 563
19. Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within three months.