Skip to content


Himangshu Kumar Mukherjee Vs. Chairman, Calcutta State Transport Corporation - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles;Civil
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberA.F.O.O. No. 145 of 1969
Judge
Reported inAIR1974Cal368
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Section 110B
AppellantHimangshu Kumar Mukherjee
RespondentChairman, Calcutta State Transport Corporation
Appellant AdvocateAmal Kumar Mukherjee, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateSomen Bose and ;Sundernanda Pal, Advs.
DispositionAppeal partly allowed
Cases ReferredGobald Motor Service Ltd. v. Veluswami and
Excerpt:
- .....in other words, the argument is that the appellant will not be able to sit in the written test for higher promotion. he may not have prospect of any promotion at all in the higher post. we cannot accept this contention of mr. mukherjee as correct for there was no proper evidence in this case to suggest as to whether, firstly, the appellant has any chance of promotion in the near future or, secondly, whether the written test and viva voce examination were essential in the case of promotion to higher grade under the railways in which he is now serving. in any case, in assessing compensation in such cases mere possibilities or chances of losing future pecuniary benefit will not be a sure test for assessment of compensation. (see : [1962]1scr929 gobald motor service ltd. v. veluswami and :.....
Judgment:

A.K. Sinha, J.

1. This is an appeal preferred against a judgment and award of Rs. 2000/- given by the Motor Claims Tribunal, 24 Parganas to the present appellant.

2. Shortly put, the appellant's caseis that he received serious bleeding injury inhis right elbow resulting fracture of boneswhile travelling in a State Bus a few hundredyards from the junction of Chitpore Roadand Harrison Road which dashed against atram car proceeding from the opposite direction towards Sealdah station. The appellantwas hospitalised for 26 days and thereafterhe was directed to attend the outdoor Department of the Hospital to continue his treatment till 3-10-66. The appellant, it is alleged,could only resume his duties on 4-10-66 afterthe expiry of his sick leave. The appellanthas therefore, claimed on account of injuries which resulted, as alleged, in permanentdisablement due to the negligent and rashdriving of the driver of the State Bus inquestion compensation to the extent ofRs. 50,000/- against the respondent, CalcuttaState Transport Corporation.

3. The Tribunal on evidence found that the appellant obtained serious injury as a result of negligent bus driving at the material time but at the same time found that the appellant did not suffer any pecuniary loss as he has been continuing in his present post in the Eastern Railway: nevertheless, the Tribunal allowed Rs. 2000/- as compensation, that is, Rs. 1500/- on account of the appellant's medical expenses and Rs. 500/- towards the cost of travelling by taxis etc. That is how, in short, the appellant felt aggrieved and preferred the present appeal.

4. Mr. Mukherjee has contended before us that the appellant lost all chances of his promotion to higher post because he may not regain his power of writing and according to the evidence of the medical expert in this case, P. W. 2, it was very uncertain even after surgery. In other words, the argument is that the appellant will not be able to sit in the written test for higher promotion. He may not have prospect of any promotion at all in the higher post. We cannot accept this contention of Mr. Mukherjee as correct for there was no proper evidence in this case to suggest as to whether, firstly, the appellant has any chance of promotion in the near future or, secondly, whether the written test and viva voce examination were essential in the case of promotion to higher grade under the Railways in which he is now serving. In any case, in assessing compensation in such cases mere possibilities or chances of losing future pecuniary benefit will not be a sure test for assessment of compensation. (See : [1962]1SCR929 Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. Veluswami and : [1970]2SCR688 ). We do not think, therefore, that the appellant is entitled to any damages on the facts of this case on account of anticipated loss of his future pecuniary benefit.

5. Even so, on the question of actual damages suffered we think the appellant is entitled to a higher sum over and above of Rs. 2000/- actually assessed by the Tribunal for it appears that the appellant may have to incur further expenses in future on account of travelling by taxis or in private car and there is no certainty when he will he free to ride public buses and trams. Having considered these contingencies we increase and assess the cost of travelling as compensation instead of Rs. 500/- at Rupees 2,500/-, that is, in all compensation is assessed at Rs. 4,000/-.

6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. We modify the Award of the Tribunal to this extent that there will be in award of Rs. 4000/- instead of Rs. 2000/-as compensation on account of injury suffered by the appellant. We direct the respondent to pay the entire sum which has remained unpaid within six weeks from the date of drawing up of the decree.

7. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal.

Sen Gupta, J.

I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //