The Assam and Meghalaya State Road Transport Corporation, Gauhati Vs. Abdul Razak - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - he sustained numerous unjuries but the worst was the injury on his leg which had to be amputated from the thigh. like a cantankerous litigant the corporation could not resist the temptation of litigation. the unfortunate, miserable, doleful cripple lived on charity, being thrown out of employment, produced evidence and obtained an award against the corporation. 2. public body should resist the temptation to litigations like cantankerous litigants for insignificant amount raising technical pleas. this is precisely what the supreme court has said in trustees bombay v. whereupon their lordships observed that the state has unhappily failed to recall its obligations under article 41 of the constitution to render public assistance without litigation in case of disablement and undeserved want. he was just a member of a large crowd of hard working pedestrians and not a member of the 'white collared class'.the poor walk down the road and no wonder that none including the state took any care or looked after the wreck. narain (1980) uj (sc) 325 (326) :(air 1980 sc 695). however, our little world is beautiful as we have at least a few humanly persons who have love and compassion for humanity. the negligence of the wrong-doer can be well inferred from the manner in which the accident has taken place. learned tribunal was fully satisfied with the evidence adduced that the motor vehicle owned by the appellant had been driven rashly and negligently by the driver, that the claimant sustained multiple injuries on various parts of his body that to save his life the leg had to be amputated learned tribunal saw the respondent, heard the witnesses and reached the conclusion that the accident crippled the claimant. while awarding the amount learned tribunal lamented that it was 'simply a poor consolation'.how very right learned tribunal was may be visualised if one puts himself in the position of the respondent. 7. in our opinion the provisions of the workmen's compensation act are no safe guideline for awarding compensation under the act. he was young, robust and others were dependants on him. he woke up after the amputation to find himself lame devoid of an important limb, a dependent on others, a wretched to live for ever a miserable life. there was a shocking bump which caused miserable injuries in various parts of his person and his life span has been shortened. he, like millions of illiterate little indians, does not know the heads under which he was entitled to compensation, that is, his legal rights. 1,74,400/-.in spit of the small compensation awarded in f avou of a poor person, the corporation has dragged him to the high court and pleads that the awarded amount was on the high side !we are of the view that the award was no compensation, it was far below the amount to which the claimant was entitled to under the law. senior government advocate, assam as well as mr. the worst sufferers of such motor accident are the poor or the pedestrian class. we are somewhat taken aback to hear that no scheme has been prepared by the government to take care of the victims of such accidents :the first and foremost obligation is to provide all possible assistance .to the poor victims. thirdly, the poor and disabled victims should be provided free legal aid in tune with the provisions of article 39a of the constitutioa fourthly, necessary provision should be made to provide the cripple with alternative means of livelihood. we fondly hope that the state government and the corporation would break a new ground and steal a march ahead of others to take appropriate scheme to provide the reliefs to the poor, the wretched and the hapless persons in the light of the observation made above. lahiri, j. 1. a young person aged about 28 years in the prime of his life lost his manhood and youth in a motor accident. the killer vehicle belonged to the state transport corporation. it was driven rashly and negligently. the young man escaped death but he is lifeless, living a deadly life. he sustained numerous unjuries but the worst was the injury on his leg which had to be amputated from the thigh. the accident happened on 31-5-71. the killer vehicle was owned by the state transport corporation. the state owned corporation provided no aid, no assistance nor any helping hand to the lame young man, possibly because he was 'a labouring man'. so, a lame person had to lodge his claim before the motor accident claims tribunal, 'the tribunal' for short. there was no effort by the public body, no show of compassion or remorse for the handicapped no endeavour to give something and settle his claim. like a cantankerous litigant the corporation could not resist the temptation of litigation. it compelled the handicapped, a daily wage earner, to fight the litigation against his formidable adversary. a man was made a cripple, but the corporation manned by human beings was devoid of human compassion and human feelings, fought the legal battle, as if it were a war. the unfortunate, miserable, doleful cripple lived on charity, being thrown out of employment, produced evidence and obtained an award against the corporation. at the time of the occurrence the respondent was helper of a mason drawing daily wages @ rs. 10/- per diem. he has been drawn to this court by the corporation and the moot question posed in the appeal is whether the determination of the compensation was technically correct or not. 2. public body should resist the temptation to litigations like cantankerous litigants for insignificant amount raising technical pleas. this is precisely what the supreme court has said in trustees bombay v. premier automobiles, air 1974 sc 923 : (1974) 4 scc 710. public institution convict; themselves of untrustworthiness out of their own mouth by fighting litigation. in state of punjab v. darshana devi, air 1979 sc 855 where the haryana government had at least a case but they instead of settling similar claim preferred an appeal to the supreme court; whereupon their lordships observed that the state has unhappily failed to recall its obligations under article 41 of the constitution to render public assistance without litigation in case of disablement and undeserved want. the supreme courtnoticed the notorious fact that our highways are graveyards or tragic deaths of the pedestrian class, where reckless, unchecked driving of heavy vehicular traffic mostly owned by the state transport buses inflict the maximum casualties. it has been observed that in many states for want of judicial man power or other pathological causes the accident claim cases pend before the tribunal in heartless slowness. we are therefore to give the bleeding class of cases high priority and dispose of the appeal to-day and right now. even none keeps the constitutional promise the judiciary must keep its promise and try to wipe tears from as many eyes as possible. 3. ayoungperson became lame, workless and worthless. he was just a member of a large crowd of hard working pedestrians and not a member of the 'white collared class'. the poor walk down the road and no wonder that none including the state took any care or looked after the wreck. he was just a left over cripple ! 4. let us now turn to the appeal preferred by the corporation under section 110d of the motor vehicles act, 1939, for short 'the act' awarding compensation of rs. 60,000/- to the cripple. there is no wrangle at the bar that the state transport vehicle driven rashly and negligently knocked abdul razak, the respondent. he was taken to hospital with multiple injuries and one of such injuries developed gangrene and the attending physician had to amputate his left leg from the left thigh. he was young, healthy helper (jogali) of masons i.e., a semi-skilled labouring man working for gain @ rs. 10/- per diem. there was no pre-trial settlement by the corporation and therefore, he had to lodge his claim of compensation which he assessed at rs. 70,000/- by putting his left hand thumb impression on the application. the ignorant, unlettered, jobless person had to fight a battle against the mighty corporation bring witnesses and to establish his case. no legal aid or state assistance was granted this is contrary to the philosophy of our enlightened constitution. it is opposed to provisions contained in arts. 39, 39a and 41 of the constitution -- vide rajasthan s.r.t.c. v. narain (1980) uj (sc) 325 (326) : (air 1980 sc 695). however, our little world is beautiful as we have at least a few humanly persons who have love and compassion for humanity. so, came dr. c.n. sarmato depose in court and prove the injuries. he deposed the circumstances under which the amputation had to be done. the employer and the mason under whom the disabled had worked proved that he was an able jugali drawing rs. 10/-per diem at all relevant time. the applicant claimed that he had to spend about rs. 3000/-for his treatment. was he, an illiterate person, required to keep a detailed accounts of expenditure we can say emphatically that the rule of law runs close to the rule of life. we cannot expect from such a person belonging to the class to maintain any account. he was hospitalised for a number of days, his leg was amputated and he was released from the hospital, perhaps long before he was required to leave. the sum of rs. 3000/-claimed on the count was a very modest amount. considering the realities of life and more particularly the condition of the wretched person we also firmly believe that the expenditure had been incurred by him. at the time of the accident he was on the left hand grassy portion of the road the vehicle driven rashly and negligently knocked him and turned turtle. the circumstances give a vivid picture of negligence and rashness of the driver. the principles of 'res ipas loquitur', the rule of evidence, are squarely applicable in the instant case. the negligence of the wrong-doer can be well inferred from the manner in which the accident has taken place. learned tribunal was fully satisfied with the evidence adduced that the motor vehicle owned by the appellant had been driven rashly and negligently by the driver, that the claimant sustained multiple injuries on various parts of his body that to save his life the leg had to be amputated learned tribunal saw the respondent, heard the witnesses and reached the conclusion that the accident crippled the claimant. learned tribunal has held that the respondent could have worked up to the age of 55 to 60 years, took average monthly income at rs. 150/-per month and reached the conclusion that 'he would have surely earned at least rs. 55,000/- but he was rendered an invalid, a cripple for the' rest of his life. taking all factors into consideration learned tribunal awarded rs. 30,000/- as special damages and rs. 30,000/- as general damages. while awarding the amount learned tribunal lamented that it was 'simply a poor consolation'. how very right learned tribunal was may be visualised if one puts himself in the position of the respondent. there was no evidence that the respondent could find out any alternative work or that there was a remote prospect or possibility of the cripple to eke out his livelihood. 5. mr. b. sarma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount was too high but could not give us any convincing reasons therefor. section 110d of 'the act' empowers the tribunal to determine the amount of compensation 'which appears to be just'. indeed, the compensation must be just and reasonable. the indubitable fact is that the left leg of a young man was amputated. the span of life of an average indian is between 60 to 65 years. those who perform physical work can reasonably earn wages up to that age. we know, we see, we have experiences of worldly matters and find that apart from their routine work they earn something extra after or before their routine jobs are done. however, we pass over this factor. 6. there is no wrangle at the bar that the respondent was wrecked in the accident and he was entitled to damages for pecuniary loss and non-pecuniary loss. although the eventual award should be a lump sum but the sum awarded must be made up of its constituent parts. the claim in such cases is generally considered under the following segments ; (a) reasonable expenses incurred for the injuries; (b) loss of earning or profits - (i) from the date of the accident till the date of trial; (ii) prospective loss. ii - non-pecuniary loss (a) pain and suffering, both past and future; (b) loss of amenities or the pleasure of life; (c) chances of marriage becoming bleak or married life impaired; (d) loss for shortening of life due to the injury; (e) prospect of future increment of salary or wages. 7. in our opinion the provisions of the workmen's compensation act are no safe guideline for awarding compensation under the act. let us therefore, make a rough calculation as to the expense that the respondent had to incur. he has categorically stated that he has spent about rs. 30007-towards the medical expenses. there was no challenge worth the name. as such, he is surely entitled to the amount. this is just his past expenses. in the futurity he would spent at least the said amount for treatment etc. that apart he required a pair of crutches and other paraphernalia, which comes to rs. 5000/-. an artificial leg costs about rs. 20,000/-, but we feel that the wretched person required an indigenous pair of crutches and calculate the price thereof at rs. 1000/-and taking into consideration the medical and other cognate expenses to be incurred by him in future we feel that he is entitled to rs. 5000/- as future medical expenses. as such, the medical expenses incurred and to be incurred comes to rs. 8000/-. under the head 'loss of earning or profit from the date of accident till the date of trial', we find that the lame persons could not earn a single paisa from any quarter. at least there is no evidence to show that he was employed anywhere in any capacity. he was, therefore, entitled to rs. 10/- per diem minus holidays. even if we take 200 days as working days in a year, the loss of earning from the date of accident till the date of conclusion of the trial comes to rs. 9000/-. now, comes the prospective loss. the claimant has categorically stated that he was totally invalid and therefore there was no prospect of future earning. his span of working life would have been at least another 35 years. as such, the prospective loss comes to rs. 2400/- per annum miltiplied by 35 years, that is, rs. 84,000/-. however, there may be many imponderable elements. he might have died in the meantime, might not have been employed throughout the year arid therefore we deduct a lump sum amount of rs. 14,000/- due to sickness, unemployment and many other contingent factors. as such, the future pecuniary loss of the claimant comes to rs. 70,000/-, this is a rough and modest estimate which we have made giving more allowance to the appellant rather than the injured. 8. the claimant lost his leg, which carried him since he was born. he has suffered pain, affliction due to the injuries. he was young, robust and others were dependants on him. he woke up after the amputation to find himself lame devoid of an important limb, a dependent on others, a wretched to live for ever a miserable life. this was his wretched conditions. in our modest estimation he is entitled to rs. 10,000/- for pain and sufferings, which he sustained due to the injuries. he has lost joy, delight, fun and enjoyment of life. he is surely entitled to rs. 15,000/- as loss of amenities of life. the pleasure of married life has been seriously impaired and he is entitled to a few thousands for the affliction, misery and abstinence, which comes to rs, 5000/-. now, let us consider the loss for shortening of life due to the injury. there was a shocking bump which caused miserable injuries in various parts of his person and his life span has been shortened. he was surely entitled to at least rs. 2400/-, even if it is held that his life was shortened by one year. now, comes the question of future increments of wages or earnings. he was a young man of 28 years a helper to mason (raj mistry). we have seen that in course of few years these helpers themselves become masons. his earning would have been double when he would have reached the age of 35 years or so. as such, the loss of future earning for 28 years at the rate of rs. 2400/- comes to rs. 67,000/- and deducting therefrom a sum of rs. 12,000/-for illness, unemployment etc., loss for future prospect of increment of wages or earning comes to rs. 55,000/-. 9. as such, the claimant was entitled to rs. 3000/- towards medical expenses already incurred, a sum of rs. 5000/- towards expenses to be incurred in future for the injuries, rs. 9000/- for loss of earning or profits from the date of accident till the date of trial, rs. 70,000/- as prospective loss of earning on the basis of the wages drawn by the workmen at the date of the accident, rs. 10,000/- for pain and sufferings (past and future), rs. 15,000/- for lossofamenitiesor pleasures of life, rs. 5000/- for the impairment of his married life, rs. 2,400/- for shortening of his life by one year, rs. 55,000/- for loss of future increment of wages or earning. as such, the modest estimation of the damages resulting out of the accident comes to rs. 1,74,000/-. in fact, the amount is no compensation, as the young man is a cripple living on charity, dependent on others and living a spiritless life. his pains, afflictions, miseries and abstinence cannot be compensated. however, the amount was perhaps a modest compensation, a fair and reasonable compensation. the corporation was lucky that the illiterate person did not appropriately place his case and demanded a very insignificant amount without knowing his right to claim compensation. he, like millions of illiterate little indians, does not know the heads under which he was entitled to compensation, that is, his legal rights. as such, he begged for some alms and no compensation in the real sense of the term. learned tribunal has given him less tha half of the compensation to which he w entitled to. the tribunal has awarde rs. 60,000/- instead of rs. 1,74,400/-. in spit of the small compensation awarded in f avou of a poor person, the corporation has dragged him to the high court and pleads that the awarded amount was on the high side !! we are of the view that the award was no compensation, it was far below the amount to which the claimant was entitled to under the law. the award was wholly in favour of the corporation and against the claimant however, there is no cross-objection and as such we do not enhance the compensation. 10. we find no merit in the appeal. accordingly, it is dismissed with costs of rs. 2000/-. we direct that if the balance amount of rs, 40,000/- with cost of rs. 2000/-is not deposited by the appellant within two months from today, the appellant shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of payment of the balance compensation on the amount. 11. post script - the obligations of the state. the state owned corporation and the public institutions under the directive principles contained in articles 39, 39a and 41 of the constitution where state owned vehicles cripple persons : we have heard mr. b. sarma, learned counsel for the state transport corporation and mr. a. k. phukan, learned addl. senior government advocate, assam as well as mr. b. m. mahanta, learned counsel for the respondent. they have thrown light on the subject. we are about to enter the 2ist century. the worst sufferers of such motor accident are the poor or the pedestrian class. we are somewhat taken aback to hear that no scheme has been prepared by the government to take care of the victims of such accidents : the first and foremost obligation is to provide all possible assistance .to the poor victims. the state or the public institutions should provide all expenses including medical expenses and reasonable amount for the maintenance of their family members until the recovery of the victims. secondly, there should be honest efforts to make pre-trial settlement. we draw the attention of the state that in most of the cases the litigation costs incurred by the state or the corporation are almost equal or higher than the amount claimed by the victims. thirdly, the poor and disabled victims should be provided free legal aid in tune with the provisions of article 39a of the constitutioa fourthly, necessary provision should be made to provide the cripple with alternative means of livelihood. it is the obligation of the state to provide public assistance in cases of sickness and disablement. we are told that there is no scheme to provide artificial limbs or to provide alternative employment to the disabled. we simply wonder : is it too late in the day to take notice of the elementary obligations of the state ! almost every day such vehicles either kill or disable so many pedestrians, mostly belonging to the lowest bracket. those who are disabled live a wretched life. they are a class by themselves. there should be law and justice for the disabled. they have constitutional rights to demand and obtain alternative employment and also artificial limbs. these are the minimum obligations of the state/state transport corporation. these are the spirit or the philosophy of our enlightened constitution. we fondly hope that the state government and the corporation would break a new ground and steal a march ahead of others to take appropriate scheme to provide the reliefs to the poor, the wretched and the hapless persons in the light of the observation made above. we have been assured by mr. a.k. phukan, learned additional senior government advocate, assam that he will inform us about the progress made by the state government to implement a scheme in the light of the observations made by us. we sincerely hope that the scheme should be prepared and implemented forthwith. .

Judgment:

Lahiri, J.

1. A young person aged about 28 years in the prime of his life lost his manhood and youth in a motor accident. The killer vehicle belonged to the State Transport Corporation. It was driven rashly and negligently. The young man escaped death but he is lifeless, living a deadly life. He sustained numerous unjuries but the worst was the injury on his leg which had to be amputated from the thigh. The accident happened on 31-5-71. The killer vehicle was owned by the State Transport Corporation. The State owned Corporation provided no aid, no assistance nor any helping hand to the lame young man, possibly because he was 'a labouring man'. So, a lame person had to lodge his claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 'the Tribunal' for short. There was no effort by the public body, no show of compassion or remorse for the handicapped No endeavour to give something and settle his claim. Like a cantankerous litigant the Corporation could not resist the temptation of litigation. It compelled the handicapped, a daily wage earner, to fight the litigation against his formidable adversary. A man was made a cripple, but the Corporation manned by human beings was devoid of human compassion and human feelings, fought the legal battle, as if it were a war. The unfortunate, miserable, doleful cripple lived on charity, being thrown out of employment, produced evidence and obtained an award against the Corporation. At the time of the occurrence the respondent was helper of a mason drawing daily wages @ Rs. 10/- per diem. He has been drawn to this Court by the Corporation and the moot question posed in the appeal is whether the determination of the compensation was technically correct or not.

2. Public body should resist the temptation to litigations like cantankerous litigants for insignificant amount raising technical pleas. This is precisely what the Supreme Court has said in Trustees Bombay v. Premier Automobiles, AIR 1974 SC 923 : (1974) 4 SCC 710. Public Institution convict; themselves of untrustworthiness out of their own mouth by fighting litigation. In State of Punjab v. Darshana Devi, AIR 1979 SC 855 where the Haryana Government had at least a case but they instead of settling similar claim preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court; whereupon their Lordships observed that the State has unhappily failed to recall its obligations under Article 41 of the Constitution to render public assistance without litigation in case of disablement and undeserved want. The Supreme Courtnoticed the notorious fact that our highways are graveyards or tragic deaths of the pedestrian class, where reckless, unchecked driving of heavy vehicular traffic mostly owned by the State Transport buses inflict the maximum casualties. It has been observed that in many States for want of judicial man power or other pathological causes the accident claim cases pend before the Tribunal in heartless slowness. We are therefore to give the bleeding class of cases high priority and dispose of the appeal to-day and right now. Even none keeps the constitutional promise the judiciary must keep its promise and try to wipe tears from as many eyes as possible.

3. Ayoungperson became lame, workless and worthless. He was just a member of a large crowd of hard working pedestrians and not a member of the 'white collared class'. The poor walk down the road and no wonder that none including the State took any care or looked after the wreck. He was just a left over cripple !

4. Let us now turn to the appeal preferred by the Corporation Under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for short 'the Act' awarding Compensation of Rs. 60,000/- to the cripple. There is no wrangle at the bar that the State Transport vehicle driven rashly and negligently knocked Abdul Razak, the respondent. He was taken to hospital with multiple injuries and one of such injuries developed gangrene and the attending physician had to amputate his left leg from the left thigh. He was young, healthy helper (jogali) of masons i.e., a semi-skilled labouring man working for gain @ Rs. 10/- per diem. There was no pre-trial settlement by the Corporation and therefore, he had to lodge his claim of compensation which he assessed at Rs. 70,000/- by putting his left hand thumb impression on the application. The ignorant, unlettered, jobless person had to fight a battle against the mighty corporation bring witnesses and to establish his case. No legal aid or State assistance was granted This is contrary to the philosophy of our enlightened Constitution. It is opposed to provisions contained in Arts. 39, 39A and 41 of the Constitution -- vide Rajasthan S.R.T.C. v. Narain (1980) UJ (SC) 325 (326) : (AIR 1980 SC 695). However, our little world is beautiful as we have at least a few humanly persons who have love and compassion for humanity. So, came Dr. C.N. Sarmato depose in Court and prove the injuries. He deposed the circumstances under which the amputation had to be done. The employer and the Mason under whom the disabled had worked proved that he was an able Jugali drawing Rs. 10/-per diem at all relevant time. The applicant claimed that he had to spend about Rs. 3000/-for his treatment. Was he, an illiterate person, required to keep a detailed accounts of expenditure We can say emphatically that the rule of law runs close to the rule of life. We cannot expect from such a person belonging to the class to maintain any account. He was hospitalised for a number of days, his leg was amputated and he was released from the hospital, perhaps long before he was required to leave. The sum of Rs. 3000/-claimed on the count was a very modest amount. Considering the realities of life and more particularly the condition of the wretched person we also firmly believe that the expenditure had been incurred by him. At the time of the accident he was on the left hand grassy portion of the road The vehicle driven rashly and negligently knocked him and turned turtle. The circumstances give a vivid picture of negligence and rashness of the driver. The principles of 'Res ipas loquitur', the rule of evidence, are squarely applicable in the instant case. The negligence of the wrong-doer can be well inferred from the manner in which the accident has taken place. Learned Tribunal was fully satisfied with the evidence adduced that the motor vehicle owned by the appellant had been driven rashly and negligently by the driver, that the claimant sustained multiple injuries on various parts of his body that to save his life the leg had to be amputated Learned Tribunal saw the respondent, heard the witnesses and reached the conclusion that the accident crippled the claimant. Learned Tribunal has held that the respondent could have worked up to the age of 55 to 60 years, took average monthly income at Rs. 150/-per month and reached the conclusion that 'he would have surely earned at least Rs. 55,000/- but he was rendered an invalid, a cripple for the' rest of his life. Taking all factors into consideration learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 30,000/- as special damages and Rs. 30,000/- as general damages. While awarding the amount learned Tribunal lamented that it was 'simply a poor consolation'. How very right learned Tribunal was may be visualised if one puts himself in the position of the respondent. There was no evidence that the respondent could find out any alternative work or that there was a remote prospect or possibility of the cripple to eke out his livelihood.

5. Mr. B. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount was too high but could not give us any convincing reasons therefor. Section 110D of 'the Act' empowers the Tribunal to determine the amount of compensation 'which appears to be just'. Indeed, the compensation must be just and reasonable. The indubitable fact is that the left leg of a young man was amputated. The span of life of an average Indian is between 60 to 65 years. Those who perform physical work can reasonably earn wages up to that age. We know, we see, we have experiences of worldly matters and find that apart from their routine work they earn something extra after or before their routine jobs are done. However, we pass over this factor.

6. There is no wrangle at the Bar that the respondent was wrecked in the accident and he was entitled to damages for pecuniary loss and non-pecuniary loss. Although the eventual award should be a lump sum but the sum awarded must be made up of its constituent parts. The claim in such cases is generally considered under the following segments ;

(a) Reasonable expenses incurred for the injuries;

(b) Loss of earning or profits -

(i) from the date of the accident till the date of trial;

(ii) prospective loss.

II - NON-PECUNIARY LOSS

(a) Pain and suffering, both past and future;

(b) loss of amenities or the pleasure of life;

(c) chances of marriage becoming bleak or married life impaired;

(d) loss for shortening of life due to the injury;

(e) prospect of future increment of salary or wages.

7. In our opinion the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act are no safe guideline for awarding compensation under the Act. Let us therefore, make a rough calculation as to the expense that the respondent had to incur. He has categorically stated that he has spent about Rs. 30007-towards the medical expenses. There was no challenge worth the name. As such, he is surely entitled to the amount. This is just his past expenses. In the futurity he would spent at least the said amount for treatment etc. That apart he required a pair of crutches and other paraphernalia, which comes to Rs. 5000/-. An artificial leg costs about Rs. 20,000/-, but we feel that the wretched person required an indigenous pair of crutches and calculate the price thereof at Rs. 1000/-and taking into consideration the medical and other cognate expenses to be incurred by him in future we feel that he is entitled to Rs. 5000/- as future medical expenses. As such, the medical expenses incurred and to be incurred comes to Rs. 8000/-. Under the head 'Loss of earning or profit from the date of accident till the date of trial', we find that the lame persons could not earn a single paisa from any quarter. At least there is no evidence to show that he was employed anywhere in any capacity. He was, therefore, entitled to Rs. 10/- per diem minus holidays. Even if we take 200 days as working days in a year, the loss of earning from the date of accident till the date of conclusion of the trial comes to Rs. 9000/-. Now, comes the prospective loss. The claimant has categorically stated that he was totally invalid and therefore there was no prospect of future earning. His span of working life would have been at least another 35 years. As such, the prospective loss comes to Rs. 2400/- per annum miltiplied by 35 years, that is, Rs. 84,000/-. However, there may be many imponderable elements. He might have died in the meantime, might not have been employed throughout the year arid therefore we deduct a lump sum amount of Rs. 14,000/- due to sickness, unemployment and many other contingent factors. As such, the future pecuniary loss of the claimant comes to Rs. 70,000/-, This is a rough and modest estimate which we have made giving more allowance to the appellant rather than the injured.

8. The claimant lost his leg, which carried him since he was born. He has suffered pain, affliction due to the injuries. He was young, robust and others were dependants on him. He woke up after the amputation to find himself lame devoid of an important limb, a dependent on others, a wretched to live for ever a miserable life. This was his wretched conditions. In our modest estimation he is entitled to Rs. 10,000/- for pain and sufferings, which he sustained due to the injuries. He has lost joy, delight, fun and enjoyment of life. He is surely entitled to Rs. 15,000/- as loss of amenities of life. The pleasure of married life has been seriously impaired and he is entitled to a few thousands for the affliction, misery and abstinence, which comes to Rs, 5000/-. Now, let us consider the loss for shortening of life due to the injury. There was a shocking bump which caused miserable injuries in various parts of his person and his life span has been shortened. He was surely entitled to at least Rs. 2400/-, even if it is held that his life was shortened by one year. Now, comes the question of future increments of wages or earnings. He was a young man of 28 years a helper to Mason (Raj Mistry). We have seen that in course of few years these helpers themselves become Masons. His earning would have been double when he would have reached the age of 35 years or so. As such, the loss of future earning for 28 years at the rate of Rs. 2400/- comes to Rs. 67,000/- and deducting therefrom a sum of Rs. 12,000/-for illness, unemployment etc., loss for future prospect of increment of wages or earning comes to Rs. 55,000/-.

9. As such, the claimant was entitled to Rs. 3000/- towards medical expenses already incurred, a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards expenses to be incurred in future for the injuries, Rs. 9000/- for loss of earning or profits from the date of accident till the date of trial, Rs. 70,000/- as prospective loss of earning on the basis of the wages drawn by the workmen at the date of the accident, Rs. 10,000/- for pain and sufferings (past and future), Rs. 15,000/- for lossofamenitiesor pleasures of life, Rs. 5000/- for the impairment of his married life, Rs. 2,400/- for shortening of his life by one year, Rs. 55,000/- for loss of future increment of wages or earning. As such, the modest estimation of the damages resulting out of the accident comes to Rs. 1,74,000/-. In fact, the amount is no compensation, as the young man is a cripple living on charity, dependent on others and living a spiritless life. His pains, afflictions, miseries and abstinence cannot be compensated. However, the amount was perhaps a modest compensation, a fair and reasonable compensation. The Corporation was lucky that the illiterate person did not appropriately place his case and demanded a very insignificant amount without knowing his right to claim compensation. He, like millions of illiterate little Indians, does not know the heads under which he was entitled to compensation, that is, his legal rights. As such, he begged for some alms and no compensation in the real sense of the term. Learned Tribunal has given him less tha half of the compensation to which he w entitled to. The Tribunal has awarde Rs. 60,000/- instead of Rs. 1,74,400/-. In spit of the small compensation awarded in f avou of a poor person, the Corporation has dragged him to the High Court and pleads that the awarded amount was on the high side !! We are of the view that the award was no compensation, it was far below the amount to which the claimant was entitled to under the law. The award was wholly in favour of the Corporation and against the claimant However, there is no cross-objection and as such we do not enhance the compensation.

10. We find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed with costs of Rs. 2000/-. We direct that if the balance amount of Rs, 40,000/- with cost of Rs. 2000/-is not deposited by the appellant within two months from today, the appellant shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of payment of the balance compensation on the amount.

11. POST SCRIPT - THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE STATE. THE STATE OWNED CORPORATION AND THE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS UNDER THE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES CONTAINED IN ARTICLES 39, 39A AND 41 OF THE CONSTITUTION WHERE STATE OWNED VEHICLES CRIPPLE PERSONS :

We have heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned counsel for the State Transport Corporation and Mr. A. K. Phukan, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, Assam as well as Mr. B. M. Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondent. They have thrown light on the subject. We are about to enter the 2ist Century. The worst sufferers of such motor accident are the poor or the pedestrian class. We are somewhat taken aback to hear that no scheme has been prepared by the Government to take care of the victims of such accidents : the first and foremost obligation is to provide all possible assistance .to the poor victims. The State or the public institutions should provide all expenses including medical expenses and reasonable amount for the maintenance of their family members until the recovery of the victims. Secondly, there should be honest efforts to make pre-trial settlement. We draw the attention of the State that in most of the cases the litigation costs incurred by the State or the Corporation are almost equal or higher than the amount claimed by the victims. Thirdly, the poor and disabled victims should be provided free legal aid in tune with the provisions of Article 39A of the Constitutioa Fourthly, necessary provision should be made to provide the cripple with alternative means of livelihood. It is the obligation of the State to provide public assistance in cases of sickness and disablement. We are told that there is no scheme to provide artificial limbs or to provide alternative employment to the disabled. We simply wonder : Is it too late in the day to take notice of the elementary obligations of the State ! Almost every day such vehicles either kill or disable so many pedestrians, mostly belonging to the lowest bracket. Those who are disabled live a wretched life. They are a class by themselves. There should be law and justice for the disabled. They have constitutional rights to demand and obtain alternative employment and also artificial limbs. These are the minimum obligations of the State/State Transport Corporation. These are the spirit or the philosophy of our enlightened Constitution. We fondly hope that the State Government and the Corporation would break a new ground and steal a march ahead of others to take appropriate scheme to provide the reliefs to the poor, the wretched and the hapless persons in the light of the observation made above. We have been assured by Mr. A.K. Phukan, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam that he will inform us about the progress made by the State Government to implement a scheme in the light of the observations made by us. We sincerely hope that the scheme should be prepared and implemented forthwith.

.