Suo Motu Vs. the Chief Secretary Government of Karnataka and the Chairman, Empowered Committee Bangalore-mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- section 168: [anand byrareddy, j] quantum of compensation towards the loss of future earning capacity on account of permanent disability occasioned as a result of personal injuries suffered by a victim - held the assessment of a claim for future financial loss either, future loss of earning or expenses to be incurred in the future, pose several difficulties. for the prospective loss cannot be claimed as precisely calculated special damages, as it has not been sustained at the date of trial. it is therefore awarded as part of general damages. (a) future loss cannot usually be proved only a broad estimate can be made by the court, on the proved facts and probabilities of each particular case; (b) it would be a matter of evidence in each case, whether there is a total loss of earning or a permanent partial loss of earning or whether the loss is at a rate slowly tapering-off, as the claimant may become readjusted; or it could even be a loss total, partial or tapering, for a limited period. it would in the discretion of the court to arrive at an average of the varying loss; (c) only because, a claimant returns to his former work at the same rate or takes up other work with a similar or better pay indicating that there is no visible continuing loss, the court ought not to lose sight of the innumerable ways that a claimant may be worse-off in future. whether the loss of the present employment which is a possibility usually envisaged or that he may be handicapped in getting a new job, even his appearance may tell against him, as for instance, if he has a visible eye or hand injury, though he would have adapted with complete success. in other words, incases where there is not immediate loss and future loss, if uncertain, it ought not to prevent an award of damages. the court ought to assess and value the chance that there will be actual loss sooner or later; (d)the award of compensation ought not to be excessively generous, under the head of loss of future earnings, as would far exceed the claimants earnings if he had not sustained the impairmentp.d. dinakaran, c.j.1. heard mr. surendra desai, learned senior counsel who appears on behalf of mr. d.l. jagadish who has filed vakalath on behalf of mr. h.d. deve gowda on whose letter dated 08.01.2009 suo motu public interest litigation was initiated. the letter along with the book by name of 'bangalore-mysore infrastructure corridor project - a case study in fraud and collusion to defeat the ends of justice and defraud courts' published by legal cell, janata dal (secular) kamataka state unit, bangalore was enclosed with the said letter dated 08.01.2009.2. mr. ashok haranahalli appears for respondents-1 to 3 and 9, mr. jayakumar s. patil, senior advocate appeal's for m/s king & partridge on behalf of respondents-4 and 5, sri s.g. kulkarni appears for respondent no. 7 and sri b.k. srinivasa gowda appears for respondent no. 8. even though notice is served on respondent no. 6 - union of india, we are of the considered opinion that the 6threspondent is not a necessary party.3. mr. desai appearing for mr. deve gowda wanted to file an affidavit in support of the contents of the letter dated 08.01.2009. similarly, mr. ashok haranahaili, learned counsel appearing for respondents-1 to 3 and 9 and mr. jayakumar s. patil appearing for respondents-4 and 5 seek tour weeks time to file objections to the letter. in our considered opinion, in view of the letter dated 08.01.2009 and the said book enclosed therewith, there is no need to file any additional affidavit by mr. deve gowda before us in this regard.3.1 similarly, we are also of the considered opinion that the state respondents-1 to 3 and 9 and the respondents-4 and 5 also are not required to file any objection before us and as we are convinced that the averments and allegations made in the letter dated 08.01.2009 as well as in the book enclosed therewith, could be effectively inquired into by appropriate authorities instead of by this court exercising the power of judicial review under article 226 of the constitution of india, whether the impugned allegations touch upon fraud or collusion or intend to defeat the ends of justice, our legal system provides separate machineries for inquiring into such averments and allegations. and in any event, since these allegations and averments are political in nature, it is rather improper for this court to enter into such political issues as the court should exercise self-restraint in entering the political thickets.3.2 but the question may arise as to still why this court treated the impugned letter dated 08.01.2009 as a public interest litigation. the answer is that when connected matters are pending before this court and they are sub judice and although the said letters were addressed to the courts enclosing a book containing the details relating to 'bangalore-mysore infrastructure corridor project - a case study in fraud and collusion to defeat the ends of justice and defraud courts', this court felt rather embarrassing to proceed in the matter ignoring die letter and the contents of the book because justice should not only be done, it should appear to have been done. therefore, we were of the considered opinion that it was to be taken up as a public interest litigation even if for the limited purpose of referring to the competent authority giving liberty to all the parties to have their say before such a competent authority.4. of course respondents-7 and 8 have rightly come forward to make their stand clear before the said competent authorities. the submission was made on behalf' of respondents-4 and 5 and also on behalf of the government that this court itself can go into the allegations.4.1 at this juncture, we got clarified by the learned advocate general himself that the state government has got independent machinery to inquire into the matter. learned advocate general while fairly agreeing that there are independent machinery to inquire into the matter such as the director general of police and corps of detectives, he also volunteered that the matter also be referred to the lok ayukta. in this context even though the respondents-1 to 3 and 9 as well as respondents-4 and 5 seek leave of this court to file their objection before this court, we deem it appropriate to permit them to tile their objection before such competent authority who would inquire into the impugned averments and allegations and record the statements of respondents-4 and 5 to tile their objection before such authority. mr. desai also fairly agrees to this.5. at this stage, mr. jayakumar s. patil, learned counsel for the respondents-4 and 5 strongly contends that since the entire controversy emerged from the letter dated 08.01.2009 and the book enclosed therewith it may not be appropriate for this co ml to direct the matter to the lok ayukta for inquiry, as the petitioner has the right to invoke section 200 of the code of criminal procedure if he is so aggrieved. but both mr. desai as well as the learned advocate (general agree that the impugned averment and allegations may be referred to the lok ayukta for better and effective scrutiny making it clear that such inquiry would be more only with reference to the project subject matter but not with reference to die allegations made against any individuals.6. we have already made it clear that the contents of the letter dated 08.01.2009 and the book 'bangalore-mysore infrastructure corridor project - a case study in fraud and collusion to defeat the ends of justice and defraud courts', published by legal cell of janata dal (secular), bangalore were taken on tile as a public interest litigation only with regard to the averments and allegations of fraud and collusion complaints with reference to the impugned project but not against any individuals. while expressing our anguish in the matter and strongly disapproving the manner in which the letter dated 08.01.2009 was addressed to the hon'ble judges enclosing the book 'bangalore-mysore infrastructure corridor project - a case study in fraud and collusion to defeat the ends of justice and defraud courts', we make the following order:(i) the registry is directed to obtain a certified copy of the letter dated 08.01.2009 of mr. h.d. devegowda, after keeping one set of the book with the registry, forward the original letters and one set of the book viz., 'bangalore-mysore infrastructure corridor project - a case study in fraud and collusion to defeat the ends of justice and defraud courts', published by legal cell of janata dal (secular), bangalore to the lok ayukta to inquire into the contents of the same as to whether there is any fraud or collusion or an attempt to defeat the ends of justice and based on the findings arrived therein, to proceed in accordance with law.(ii) to direct all the authorities herein not to politicise the issues which are sub judice before this court or before any court or authority either through the media or the press or by writing letters to the hon'ble judges.7. with the above direction, the above public interest litigation is closed. however, no order is made as to costs.