State of M. P. v. Ganpat — 1964 DIGILAW 59 (MP)

JUDGMENT V.R. NEWASKAR, J. 1. These two appeals No. 24 and 25 of 1960 arise out of two different suits No.3 and 2 of 1957 filed by two several plaintiffs Ganpat son of Chunnilal and Ramkishan son of Lunkaran Agrawal both of Kukshi who were injured while traveling in a bus of Madhya Bharat Roadways owned by the State of Madhya Bharat No. M.B.O. 1228 on the 10.8.1956. This bus started from Dhar at 3 P.M. and proceeded towards Kukshi. Both the above passengers purchased tickets of their destination and boarded the aforesaid passenger bus. The depot Manager at Dhar as also the booking agent there and the conductor of the bus Madangir accepted for carriage a glass carboy of nitric which a passenger gold–smith by profession wanted to carry from Dhar to Kukshi. This carboy was placed in a wooden frame but was not duly packed so as not to cause any damage even if any accident were caused to the passenger bus as required by Rule 222 of the Madhya Bharat Motor Vehicles Rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act. This wooden frame containing the acid carboy was loaded on the top of the bus. When the bus proceeded from Dhar towards Kukshi within seven miles from Dhar the glass carboy broke and the nitric acid, which was concentrated leaked out from the same. It trickled down from all over the top. The passengers including the aforesaid two plaintiffs began to feel uneasy because of the sensation of burning caused by the spray of trickling acid carried by the wind. When it became unbearable the passengers complained and the conductor too realised that there was something amiss with the acid carboy. The driver of the bus Dattopant was asked to stop it. He did so. The passengers rushed out of the bus. The plaintiffs who were sitting in the main portion where the majority of the passengers sit got out of the bus. They got hurt by the trickling acid both when they were seated in the bus and also when they got down from the door way the injures caused in the latter act being more serious. The plaintiffs who were sitting in the main portion where the majority of the passengers sit got out of the bus. They got hurt by the trickling acid both when they were seated in the bus and also when they got down from the door way the injures caused in the latter act being more serious. The case of the plaintiffs is that employees of the Madhya Bharat Roadways including the driver Dattopant and conductor Madangir who were responsible for accepting the acid carboy glass in the condition of its packing as it was, were guilty of negligence and as a result of this negligence the glass carboy with the imperfect packing got broken and caused severe acid burns to them and they were required to remain in the hospital for treatment and even after they were discharged they suffered from the injuries for some time, were unable to attend to their business and also were likely to suffer in future and would be put to discomfort. The prospect of their future happiness would be reduced considerably as also the expectancy of life. 2. The plaintiff Ganpat of Civil Suit Number 3 of 1957 who is the respondent in Civil First Appeal No. 24 of 1960, consequently claimed Rs. 32,000 as damages, the details whereof are as follows:– Rs. 1,500 For expenses of treatment at the King Edward Hospital at Dhar from 10.9.1956 to 11.10.1956, for traveling expenses of himself and the members of his family from Kukshi to Dhar and back and for the establishment maintained by him at Dhar for his family during that period. Rs. 500 For expenses of treatment on return to Kukshi from 12.10.1956 to 31.7.1957 including medical expenses Rs. 5,000 For loss of income of trade during the period of nine months during which the plaintiff was ill. Rs. 25,000 For nervous shock, loss of happiness, pain and suffering present as well as future both mental and physical; for suffering due to sense of shame on account of permanent disfiguration; for loss of strength in the left hand due to acid burns, etc. Total Rs. 32,000 Notice under section 80 C.P.C. was given to the defendant-State. Rs. 25,000 For nervous shock, loss of happiness, pain and suffering present as well as future both mental and physical; for suffering due to sense of shame on account of permanent disfiguration; for loss of strength in the left hand due to acid burns, etc. Total Rs. 32,000 Notice under section 80 C.P.C. was given to the defendant-State. After the reorganisation of States as a result of the States Reorganisation Act of 1956 the liability of the erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat became the liability of the newly formed State of Madhya Pradesh in which the former merged. The plaintiff therefore claimed a decree for Rs. 32,000. 3. Plaintiff Ramkishan of Civil Suit Number:–2 of 1957 who is the respondent in Civil First Appeal No.25 of 1960 made identical claim of Rs. 32,000 the details whereof being similar to those set out by Ganpat in his plaint. Besides the State of Madhya Pradesh to plaintiffs impleaded the Madhya Bharat Roadways, the driver of the bus as well as its conductor as parties. 4. A joint written statement on behalf of the State and the Madhya Bharat Road ways owned by it was filed. The driver and the conductor filed a separate written statement. According to the written statement filed by defendants No.1 and 2 (The State of Madhya Pradesh and the Madhya Bharat Roadways) it was contended that no Depot Manager and Depot Station Officer had specially been appointed for the purpose of booking goods of the passengers traveling by the said Roadways for Dhar-Kukshi route. The work of booking goods, according to them, used to be done in booking agents who were appointed for the purpose. The booking used to be done in accordance with the rules framed by the Madhya Bharat Roadways. The fest of the plaintiffs' material allegations were either denied or not admitted. The claim for general damages amounting to Rs. 25,000 was denied. In their special pleadings defendant No.1 and 2 contended that the acid carboy was being taken very carefully after complying with the rules and there was no element of negligence on the part of the employees of the Madhya Bharat Roadways in its loading or carriage. As the carboy had been placed on the top, it was not probable, according to them, that the acid contents of the same would trickle directly upon the persons of the plaintiff. As the carboy had been placed on the top, it was not probable, according to them, that the acid contents of the same would trickle directly upon the persons of the plaintiff. If at all the injuries sustained by the plaintiffs must have been the result of their own negligence in putting their bodies outside the windows contrary to the rules for which they themselves were responsible. The person to whom, the acid carboy belonged was a necessary party to the suit and it was he who having failed to take appropriate step to preserve the goods, was responsible for the injuries caused to the plaintiffs. 5. The defendants No.3 and 4 i.e. the driver and conductor in their written statement denied their personal responsibility for the loss resulting from injuries caused to the plaintiffs. They denied that there was any breach of duty on their part involving negligence. They also denied the extent of damages claimed. Other contentions were almost similar. Only additional allegation made by these defendants was that the passengers had been warned not to get down. 6. On the basis of these pleadings the trial Court framed the following as the principal and material issues in Civil Suit No.2 of 1957. (ii) Was there any prohibition, according to Traffic Rules for the passengers to carry dangerous goods in the passenger buses and if so what is its effect on the suit? (iv) Did any acid leak from the top of the bus and fall on the body of the plaintiff causing intolerable burning, sensation and nervousness? (v) Did the passengers sitting on the front seat caution all the remaining passengers of the bus including the plaintiff that acid was falling down from the top of the bus and none should move out? (vi) Was the bodily ailment caused to the plaintiff due to his own carelessness? If so what is its effect upon the suit? (vii) Did the plaintiff receive injuries as described in the plaint and did he suffer physical ailment on that account? (ix) Was the plaintiff treated as an in-door patient in the Dhar Hospital from 10.8.1956 to 8.10.1956 and thereafter treated in Kukshi Hospital and is he still suffering bodily pain? (x) Are the injuries detailed by the plaintiff caused by the mismanagement, gross negligence, willful misconduct and failure in carrying out official duty by the employees of the Roadways? (ix) Was the plaintiff treated as an in-door patient in the Dhar Hospital from 10.8.1956 to 8.10.1956 and thereafter treated in Kukshi Hospital and is he still suffering bodily pain? (x) Are the injuries detailed by the plaintiff caused by the mismanagement, gross negligence, willful misconduct and failure in carrying out official duty by the employees of the Roadways? (xi) Has the plaintiff suffered physical and mental loss as described in paras 1 to 6 of para 9? (xii) Has the plaintiff suffered financial loss and mental agony etc., as described in sub-paras VII to XI in para 9? (xiii) What is the extent of joint or several liability, if at all, of defendants 1 to 4 for the physical, financial and mental suffering caused to the plaintiff? (xiv) Is the plaintiff entitled to special and general damages to the tune of Rs. 32,000. (xv) Is the suit against defendants 3 and 4 within limitation? 7. The issues framed in Civil Suit Number 3 of 1957 are practically similar. 8. The trial Court found that there was failure on the part of the employees of the Roadways in disregarding Rule No. 222 of the Madhya Bharat Motor Vehicle Rules, 1949, which were in force at the material time by accepting the glass carboy full of Nitric acid which had been imperfectly packed. The Rule aforesaid required packing of a sort which would not cause any damage to the vehicle or the persons carried on it even in case of accident. The carboy got broken due to mere shakes and jerks in a moving bus. Packing in such a case cannot be said to be in accordance with the aforesaid Rule. The acid was found to have caused injuries not by its trickle through the top by reason of the spraying of its drops upon the person of the plaintiffs by the blowing wind. There was no evidence according to the trial Court that the passengers occupying the front seat had warned the other passenger including the plaintiffs not to move out of the bus. The plaintiffs, according to it, were not guilty of carelessness. Injuries alleged by the plaintiffs were found to be established. The period during which they received treatment in the Civil Hospital at Dhar was found proved. The plaintiffs, according to it, were not guilty of carelessness. Injuries alleged by the plaintiffs were found to be established. The period during which they received treatment in the Civil Hospital at Dhar was found proved. Plaintiff Ramkishan of Civil Suit No.2 of 1957 was under treatment in the Hospital at Dhar from 10.8.1956 to 8.10.1956 while plaintiff Ganpat of Civil Suit No.3 of 1957 was under treatment there from 10.8.1956 to 12.10.1956. Evidence of Dr. Santoshsingh of Kukshi also, was held, to have established that Ganpat was under his treatment at Kukshi from 13.10.1956 to 23.11.1956. 9. There were permanent scalds and scars, according to the trial Court upon the forehead, face and other parts of the body of Ramkishan. The scalds and scars on the body of Ganpat were not on the face. His grievance was that the injuries caused to him by the burns had the effect of always keeping him mentally dejected. The learned Judge did not agree with this complaint of his. He was inclined to hold that the mental depression was due to the memory of the accident. 10. As regards the breach of duty on the part of the Madhya Bharat Roadways and its employees the trial Court held that the agents concerned with the booking of goods transgressed Motor Vehicle Rule No 222 by accepting imperfectly packed glass carboy containing Nitric acid. It further held that the driver and the conductor of the passenger bus transgressed Rule 93 (10) of the Madhya Bharat Motor Vehicle Rules by failing to take all possible precautions to ensure that the passengers are not endangered or unduly inconvenienced. The injuries caused to the plaintiff in each of these two cases was, thus held to be direct and proximate cause of the breach of duty on the part of the employees of the Madhya Bharat Roadways. Vicarious liability of the State of Madhya Bharat consequently had arisen and it had passed on to the State of Madhya Pradesh after the State Reorganisation Act had come into force. It awarded to Ramkishan Rs. 4,000 as general damages and Rs. 1,600 as special damages, in all Rs. 5,600 and to Ganpat Rs. 5,000 as general damages and Rs. 2,200 as special damages, in all Rs. 7,200. Decrees for the aforesaid sums were accordingly passed in the two cases. 11. The state has preferred appeals in both these cases. It awarded to Ramkishan Rs. 4,000 as general damages and Rs. 1,600 as special damages, in all Rs. 5,600 and to Ganpat Rs. 5,000 as general damages and Rs. 2,200 as special damages, in all Rs. 7,200. Decrees for the aforesaid sums were accordingly passed in the two cases. 11. The state has preferred appeals in both these cases. Ramkishan's appeal is Number 25 of 1960 and that of Ganpat is Number 24 of 1960. Ganpat has preferred cross-objection to the extent of Rs. 6,400. 12. It is clear beyond doubt that the employees of the Madhya Bharat Roadways including the booking agent, the Depot Manager and Depot Station Officer at Dhar, the driver and the conductor were guilty of breach of duty imposed upon them in accepting for carriage by a passenger bus a glass carboy containing Nitric acid which had not been packed as required by Rule 222 of the Madhya Bharat Motor Vehicles Rules, 1949. The driver and the conductor were further guilty of breach of duty in failing to see to the compliance of Rule 93 (10) of the Rule aforesaid. The injuries caused to both the plaintiffs Ramkishan and Ganpat have been proved by the evidence of Dr. Bobra, who attended them, at the Civil Hospital, Dhar. These injuries were clearly the direct and proximate result of the breach of duty aforesaid and the only genuine controversy which is left for consideration is as to the extent of damages. 13. As regards general damages the principal contention raised on behalf of the State is that in awarding them the Court should not be liberal and that only a moderate figure should be chosen for awarding them. It was pointed out that the principle upon which the general damages are awarded is that it should fairly represent the objective estimate of the loss of expected future happiness of a victim. Formerly the trend of decisions in England and elsewhere was to award general damages on comparatively liberal scale. But there is now, it is said, a shift to grant damages on a moderate basis. Reliance in this connection was placed upon the decisions reported in Benhum vs. Gambling, (1941) 1 All. England LR 7 and Laurie vs. Reglan Building Co., (1941) 3 All. England LR 332. In the first mentioned case the damages awarded were Rs. But there is now, it is said, a shift to grant damages on a moderate basis. Reliance in this connection was placed upon the decisions reported in Benhum vs. Gambling, (1941) 1 All. England LR 7 and Laurie vs. Reglan Building Co., (1941) 3 All. England LR 332. In the first mentioned case the damages awarded were Rs. 1200 but the House of Lords brought them down to Rs. 200. Reliance was also placed upon the decisions in Harris vs. Bright's Contractors, (1953) 1 All. England LR 395, Wilson vs. Pilley (1957) 3 All. England LR 525, Union of India vs. Bhagwati Prasad, 1957 JLJ 765=ILR 1957 MP 43=AIR 1957 MP 359, Ahmedabad Municipality vs. Shantilal, AIR 1961 Gujarat 196, State of Madras vs. J. Appadurai, AIR 1959 Madras 369, Manindra Nath vs. Mathuradas, AIR 1946 Cal. 175. 14. On behalf of the respondent-plaintiff reliance is mainly placed upon the decision reported in Gwalior and Northern India Transport Co. vs. Dinkar Joshi, MPLJ 1955 SCR 1479=AIR 1955 MB 214 and on the strength of that decision it is contended that the amounts of damages awarded are proper. 15. As to special damages contention is raised that most of the items are either not proved or the evidence adduced violated the 'best evidence' rule. Particularly, it is contended, that in proving the expenses of medical treatment both at Dhar and Kukshi appropriate evidence was not produced and the lower Court was not justified in proceeding on conjecture in the absence of legal evidence. It was also contended that damages which were not the direct and proximate cause of the accident but were too remote were awarded such as the expenses incurred in engaging a special car for the family members to go to Dhar from Kukshi, a distance of 61 miles as also the expenses incurred by the family members in coming to Dhar and back during illness. 16. I shall first consider the contentions as to special damages in the case of Ganpat. The sums awarded by the trial Court under this head are:– Rs. 100 For engaging a special car which brought the family members from Kukshi to Dhar. Rs. 100 For the expenses of five members of the family for coming to and going back from Dhar during the period when he was undergoing treatment at Dhar. Rs. 150 For medicine. Rs. 360 Rs. 100 For engaging a special car which brought the family members from Kukshi to Dhar. Rs. 100 For the expenses of five members of the family for coming to and going back from Dhar during the period when he was undergoing treatment at Dhar. Rs. 150 For medicine. Rs. 360 Rs. 315 for Messing and separate establishment charges Rs. 39/6/- For rent for private ward engaged by him. Rs. 5/10/- Extra for rounding up. Rs. 263 For special diet which he was required to take at Rs. 4 per day for 63 days (Rs. 10 calculated more due to arithmetical error). Rs. 230 For medical expenses at Kukshi regarding further treatment after he was discharged from the hospital at Dhar. Propriety for the award of each of these items will be examined on the basis of evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff. 17. As regards the first item of Rs. 100 for engaging a special car, it is quite likely that the news of accident to the plaintiff might have perturbed the family members, yet running down to Dhar for all of them may not justify award of expenses of all, in case separate expenses had been incurred for each of them, yet in the present case the information reached Kukshi at night time and even if it be considered reasonable in the context that at least one attendant family member would be required for attending on the injured plaintiff, the only possible mode of conveying him at such an hour of night was by a special car which would charge the same amount for one or mere of the passengers. In these circumstances, Rs. 100 awarded by the trial Court for that item is reasonable and proper. 18. The second item of Rs. 100 for expenses of five members of the family in coming to and going from Dhar though held proved ought not to be included in the final computation. The reason is that it cannot be said that the expenses of coming to and going from Kukshi to and from Dhar during the period the plaintiff was at Dhar for five members should legitimately be awarded as being the direct consequence of the wrongful act of the defendant. These damages are too remote. The reason is that it cannot be said that the expenses of coming to and going from Kukshi to and from Dhar during the period the plaintiff was at Dhar for five members should legitimately be awarded as being the direct consequence of the wrongful act of the defendant. These damages are too remote. Moreover it is not reasonable that five members of the family should be in attendance and that they should come to Dhar and back to Kukshi often. This item therefore cannot be allowed even to the extent allowed by the trial Court. The plaintiff had claimed Rs. 250 to 300. This item is therefore totally disallowed in view of the circumstances that in the first place the plaintiff was supplied three free passes during the period he was under going treatment at the Hospital at Dhar and in the second place all need not have come and gone often. 19. The next item is for medical expenses. The amount claimed was Rs. 700 to 800 for medical expenses and for the expenses of the family members for their stay at Dhar. The trial Court awarded Rs. 150 for medical expenses. The trial Court estimated the expenses for purchasing 20 penicillin Phials, 5 Streptomycin and one Morpoia Injection and 30 or 40 tubes of Penicillin ointment to be Rs. 150. The actual price of these drugs was not proved by the production of cash-memos but the Court held that the price could not be less than Rs. 150 if general price list of these were referred. The plaintiff must have been required to spend for this as appears from the evidence of Dr. Virendra Kumar Bobra although he was unable to say the exact price thereof. In the absence of positive evidence as to price of these I should have been disinclined to hold the item proved. But neither party has led evidence as to price of these medicines and the Courts estimate about it appears to be modest. I would therefore not consider it proper to interfere with the award of this sum by the trial Court although there is no reason to award larger amount as claimed by the plaintiff in his cross-objection, he having failed to lead definite evidence about the extent of such expenses. 20. I would therefore not consider it proper to interfere with the award of this sum by the trial Court although there is no reason to award larger amount as claimed by the plaintiff in his cross-objection, he having failed to lead definite evidence about the extent of such expenses. 20. As regards the establishment charges of the family members during their stay this item should not have been allowed because whether they lived at Kukshi or Dhar they would in any case be required to spend for their daily expenses and in the second place it is not reasonable to hold that there should have been a separate establishment for five or six members at Dhar. As observed earlier only expenses of one attendant member can reasonably be allowed. The plaintiff has not proved what is the difference in the expenses of such one member between his stay at Kukshi and that at Dhar. In the absence of proper proof this item cannot be allowed. 21. As regards the expenses for a special diet at Rs. 4 per day for 63 days together with an extra sum of Rs. 10 in all amounting to Rs. 262, I do not think the award of this amount is unreasonable. The plaintiff must have been on special diet of fruits, milk and other food materials. He stated that he was required to spend about Rs. 4 or 5 per day for this. The trial Court believed this. He was justified in doing so. There is therefore no cause to interfere. 22. The plaintiff can also claim rent Rs. 39-6-0 for the special ward. 23. Thus on consideration of all these items the total amount to which the plaintiff is entitled is Rs. 551-6-0 instead of Rs. 1,500 as claimed by him. 24. As regards the expenses of special treatment at Kukshi the plaintiff has claimed Rs. 500. The Trial Court has awarded Rs. 230. Dr. Santoshsingh of Kukshi stated that he treated him as an out-door patient from 13.10.1956 to 23.11.1956 i.e., for 42 days. The dressing of wounds was continued after plaintiff's arrival at Kukshi for about 8 or 10 days and bandage was required to be changed 10 or 15 times during this period. The expenses for this were estimated by the trial Court at Rs. 50. The dressing of wounds was continued after plaintiff's arrival at Kukshi for about 8 or 10 days and bandage was required to be changed 10 or 15 times during this period. The expenses for this were estimated by the trial Court at Rs. 50. He further held that as he was proved to be under the treatment of Dr. Santoshsingh for about 40 days be must be continued his special diet for this period and awarded Rs. 160 for this. This is quite fair and reasonable. Rs. 20 were estimated for treatment after 23.11.1960. This too is not excessive or unreasonable. I would therefore agree with the trial Court's estimate of Rs. 230 on this count and affirm the same. 25. The total figure for the expenses during illness therefore comes to Rs. 881 6-0. 26. The next item to be considered is as to loss of income during the period of his illness in the hospital at Dhar, later during the period he was undergoing treatment at Kukshi and for a further period of nearly six or seven months during which he was unable to follow his avocation. The amount which he claims under this head is Rs. 5,000. The trial Court, on a review of evidence adduced by Ganpat on this head and particularly having regard to the fact that he claimed himself to be a businessman dealing in grain business and money-lending, yet asserted that he had not kept any accounts during the relevant period and had neither paid income-tax nor sales-tax, came to the following conclusion:– "Thus even with all this evidence before me I have no basis to form even an approximate idea about his income. Consequently, I feel that his income during the preincident period could not be above taxable level fixed for income-tax i.e. could not be above Rs. 3000 per year i.e. Rs. 250." As regards the period for which damages at this rate could be claimed by the plaintiff it held that this period would be four months and a half. 27. It is contended on behalf of the State that the learned Judge, having come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had not produced evidence which would have given him even an approximate idea as to his income, was not justified in assuming the loss of income to be at Rs. 250 per month. 28. 27. It is contended on behalf of the State that the learned Judge, having come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had not produced evidence which would have given him even an approximate idea as to his income, was not justified in assuming the loss of income to be at Rs. 250 per month. 28. The plaintiff Ganpat in his statement speaks about his income from his grain business as also from money-lending. He was questioned about his income from grain business during 1950 to 1955. He replied that he had not kept any accounts in respect of this period and could not say even approximately what that income was. As to his money lending business he claimed to have dealt to the extent of Rs. 50,000 or Rs. 60,000 but when questioned to give details of income he admitted that he was not in a position to say even approximately what that income was during the period from 1950 to 1955. He admitted that he had not filled any form for payment of any income-tax or sales-tax. He admitted that he has his three grown up sons who too take part in the business and assist him. In these state of things the burden lay upon the plaintiff to prove what was the level of his average monthly income during the period of his own inaction due to the incident. His own statement does not afford proper basis for determining the same. 29. Krishnakant P.W. 4 makes a vague statement that the plaintiff did the business of money-lending, grain, cotton and ground-nuts. The witness has occasion to visit plaintiff's shop only about once a year. The witness as a registration clerk had occasion to register about three mortgage deeds in which the plaintiff was a mortgagee but he was unable to give the volume of this investment of the plaintiff. Another witness P.W. 6 Hiralal also makes a vague statement that the plaintiff does money-lending and Adat business as also has a shop for miscellaneous goods. He also owned two houses according to him. But he could not give the extent of his earning. Plaintiff's son Babulal spoke of his monetary investment to amount to Rs. 25,000 on pro-notes and Rs. 30,000/- on Khata dues and his annual turnout of business to be of three lacs. 30. He also owned two houses according to him. But he could not give the extent of his earning. Plaintiff's son Babulal spoke of his monetary investment to amount to Rs. 25,000 on pro-notes and Rs. 30,000/- on Khata dues and his annual turnout of business to be of three lacs. 30. Having regard to the evidence given about this item it is difficult to draw a correct estimate of his loss of income. As to his investment they would continue to yield income and as to his grain and Adat business evidence which could have been given has not been given. Accounts are withheld. The trial Court estimated the loss of income during the period of four and half months of plaintiff's inaction due to the accident to be at Rs. 250 P.M. basis being that he paid no income-tax. It may be a reasonable inference to draw from the circumstance that the plaintiff did not fill income-tax form because his income could not have been more than Rs. 3,000/- but from this does it necessarily follow that it was Rs. 3,000 and not less. Moreover with his sons also participating can we really infer what the loss might have been due to his inability to participate in the business? In this state of evidence the plaintiff can well be said to have failed to prove this item. The award of Rs. 1,125 was therefore not proper. 31. This takes us to the plaintiff's claim of Rs. 25,000 as general damages. 32. Now general damages are those which the law presumes to flow from the negligent act of the defendant complained of. Although these ought to be proved but it is not necessary to allege them in detail in the statement of claim. Under this head the plaintiff can be awarded damage for pain and suffering endured, past, present and future, the inconvenience undergone, loss of enjoyment of life including its ambitions sustained also past, present and future, shortening of expectation of life and loss of future earnings if any. The trial Court held, relying upon the principles laid down in State of Madras vs. J. Appadurai, AIR 1959 Mad 369 and Mahindra Nath vs. Mathuradas, AIR 1946 Cal. 175, that the plaintiff ought to be awarded Rs. 3,000 for the bodily injuries caused to him by the accident and for pain and suffering undergone by him. The trial Court held, relying upon the principles laid down in State of Madras vs. J. Appadurai, AIR 1959 Mad 369 and Mahindra Nath vs. Mathuradas, AIR 1946 Cal. 175, that the plaintiff ought to be awarded Rs. 3,000 for the bodily injuries caused to him by the accident and for pain and suffering undergone by him. He further awarded Rs. 1,000 for the possible feeling of dejection and abhorrence due to existence of scalds and scars over his body during the rest of his life. A further sum of Rs. 1,000 was awarded for the incapacity resulting from permanent damage to his left hand. 33. Now in considering the question as to the measure of damages general or special due to negligent act of the defendant the principle to be borne in mind is that the injured party should be placed as far as money can do it in the same position as he would have been but for the negligence of the defendant. Another thing which also should not be overlooked is that the injured plaintiff can sue for compensation only once; he can never sue again for it. He must therefore be awarded full and fair compensation for that which he has suffered and that he may suffer in future. With regard to factors for which assessment with mathematical precision is not possible such as for shortened expectation of the pain and suffering past and future, nervous shock, loss of happiness past and future, an attempt should be made to award a sum which accords with general run of assessment made by Judges over years in-comparable cases although it is impossible to standardise damages. Award of damages for pain and suffering or for shortened expectation of life should not be made to depend upon the financial position or the station in life of the sufferer and has to be awarded irrespective of these considerations. 34. The plaintiff in the present case had to undergo pain and suffering for over four months. He has sustained scalds and scars which would become a source of dejection and abhorrence to him for the rest of his life. There is moreover some loss of future enjoyment and slight shortened expectation of life. Award of Rs. 5,000 for the aforesaid grounds cannot be said to be out of accord with the general run of assessment in comparable cases. There is moreover some loss of future enjoyment and slight shortened expectation of life. Award of Rs. 5,000 for the aforesaid grounds cannot be said to be out of accord with the general run of assessment in comparable cases. In Gwalior and Northern India Transport Co. vs. Dinkar Joshi, MPLJ 1955 HCR 1479=AIR 1955 Madhya Bharat 214, the plaintiff had sustained severe injuries which had resulted in the fracture of his lumbar vertebra and the injuries had produced a lump over his shoulder. His health was suffered as also expectation of life. He was awarded Rs. 10,000 for pain and suffering and Rs. 20,000 for impairment of health etc. This case was noted as a comparable case in Ganpathi vs. State of Madras, AIR 1960 Mysore 222, in which a young man prosecuting his studies in the Government College, Mangalore, was hit while riding a cycle by means of motor vehicle. He became unconscious and regained full consciousness five days later. He was in patient in a hospital for two and half months. He was awarded Rs. 6,000 as general damages. In State of Madras vs. J. Appadurai AIR 1959 Madras 369, the plaintiff was struck down and injured by a Motor bus and sustained severe injury in his leg which had to be computed. He was awarded Rs. 10,000. 35. Having regard to these decisions it cannot be said that the general damages awarded in this case are excessive. 36. The case in Benhum vs. Gambling, (1941) 1 All England Law Reports 7, though indicates a shift in awarding damages on a moderate and not liberal scale is not a case in point. It was the case of a child of 2½ years who was killed in a road accident. Damages awarded were reduced by House of Lords from Rs. 1200 to Rs. 200. But this is by no means a comparable case and in Harris vs. Bright's Asphalt Contractors, Ltd. (1953) 1 All England Law Reports 395 (402) damages amounting to Rs. 500 were awarded for pain and suffering under gone by a person of 35 years of age with all prospects of life. 37. On the whole I do not think there is any reason to interfere with the amount awarded by the trial Court fat general damages. 38. 500 were awarded for pain and suffering under gone by a person of 35 years of age with all prospects of life. 37. On the whole I do not think there is any reason to interfere with the amount awarded by the trial Court fat general damages. 38. Appeal preferred by the State against Ganpat is partly allowed and plaintiff's claim of special damages is reduced to Rs. 881-6-0 whereas his claim for general damages is maintained at Rs. 5,000 awarded by the trial Court. The total amount awarded now is Rs. 5,881-6-0. The cross-objection preferred by him is dismissed. 39. This takes us to the appeal Number 25 of 1960 against Ramkishan. As both the plaintiffs were involved in the same accident it is unnecessary to deal with the question as to liability of the defendant for their negligence in providing a safe vehicle. By reason of negligence on the part of the employees of the Madhya Bharat Roadways entrusted with the duty of accepting goods for carriage in booking glass carboy full at Nitric acid over the top of a passenger bus in violation of Rule 222 of the Madhya Bharat Motor Vehicles Rules, 1949, the State who owned the vehicle is liable for the injuries sustained by him. 40. The only question in appeal is as regards the quantum of damages special and general. 41. Plaintiff Ramkishan claims in his suit Rs. 7,000 as special damages and Rs. 25,000 as general damages. Special damages claimed consisted of three items:– (1) For Medical treatment in the Hospital at Dhar including diet, medicines and for the expenses of a special establishment maintained at Dhar for self and family members from 10.8.1956 to 8.10.1956 Rs. 1,500. (2) For Medical treatment received at Kukshi from 10.8.1956 to 31.7.1957 Rs. 500. (3) For loss of income during nearly nine months for which he was unable to follow his avocation Rs. 5,000. 42. As regards item No.1 the plaintiff claimed Rs. 350 for special cars by which his brother Rameshwar came from Indore and his other members of the family from Kukshi. The trial Court held that the plaintiff had not proved the fact of actual payment of the aforesaid sum but it allowed to the plaintiff Rs. 5,000. 42. As regards item No.1 the plaintiff claimed Rs. 350 for special cars by which his brother Rameshwar came from Indore and his other members of the family from Kukshi. The trial Court held that the plaintiff had not proved the fact of actual payment of the aforesaid sum but it allowed to the plaintiff Rs. 150 on this account as it was considered reasonable by it that his brother who was then at Indore and his other family members who were at Kukshi were justified in rushing to Dhar in special cars to attend on him. It therefore allowed Rs. 150 on this account. No doubt expenses of one attendant-member ordinarily should have been allowed but in the special circumstances of the case since both his brother Rameshwar and other members of the family were justified in rushing to Dhar to attend on him and since the special car expenses for one or more would be the same the trial Court was justified in allowing this sum. 43. The next item is of medicines. The plaintiff did not prove that he was required to spend Rs. 500 to 600 over this head. The treatment at the hospital in Dhar continued for nearly two months. Dr. Bobra stated that for this plaintiff required to purchase 5 injections of Strepto-penicillin, 16 bulbs of Penicillin and one of ATS. Neither Penicillin-ointment nor Burnol were required to be purchased as he was supplied ointment from the hospital. The trial Court awarded Rs. 100 for expenses of medicines, Rs. 232 for his special diet at Rs. 4 per day for fruits and milk, almonds etc. for 58 days and Rs. 36-14-0 for rent. It further allowed establishment charges amounting to Rs. 290 at Rs. 5 per day in all Rs. 850. 44. As regards the expenses of medicines having regard to the details of medicines required at Dhar as deposed to by Dr. Bobra in the absence of evidence of actual purchase supported by voucher it is not proper to allow Rs. 100 for the aforesaid medicines. The expenses for this cannot exceed Rs. 50. As regards the establishment charges allowed Rs. 5 per day for maintaining establishment for five persons at Dhar is not reasonable. At the most the plaintiff could legitimately ask for the expenses of one attendant. Nothing can be allowed for the expenses of guests. 100 for the aforesaid medicines. The expenses for this cannot exceed Rs. 50. As regards the establishment charges allowed Rs. 5 per day for maintaining establishment for five persons at Dhar is not reasonable. At the most the plaintiff could legitimately ask for the expenses of one attendant. Nothing can be allowed for the expenses of guests. I would therefore consider it proper to allow Rs. 116 i.e. Rs. 2 per day for one attendant. Rent of the special ward is Rs. 36-4-0 as evidenced by the receipt Ex. P-2 proved by Dr. Bobra. Thus the plaintiff can be allowed Rs. 564-14-0 in place of Rs. 850 awarded by the trial Court. 45. As regards plaintiff's treatment at Kukshi the plaintiff gave no evidence beyond his own statement. The trial Court disallowed this item and no cross-objection is filed by the plaintiff. It is therefore unnecessary to consider this item. 46. A regards the plaintiff having suffered loss of income amounting to Rs. 5000 claimed by him for 9 months of his illness the trial Court held that he was entitled for this item for a period of 1hree months only at Rs. 250 P.M. i.e. Rs. 750. The plaintiff has not preferred any cross-objection. The only thing therefore to be considered is whether the award of Rs. 750 for three months is proper. The plaintiff is a business-man and since he has not proved definitely his loss of income by production of any account books kept by him. (With the kind of business be carries on it is legitimate to infer that be must be keeping some accounts) or by any appropriate method it is not proper to allow him anything on a mere conjectural basis. The burden lay upon him to prove this. The trial Court itself observed 'there is absolutely no basis for estimating his income and thereby securing a basis for calculating loss of income'. It yet awards Rs. 750 at Rs. 250 P.M. These is hardly proper. This item has therefore to be disallowed. 47. This takes us to the claim for general damages. The trial Court held it proved that the plaintiff was required to suffer severe bodily pain and mental anguish as a result of injuries caused by acid burns to a considerable extent immediately after the incident and to a lesser extent until he was discharged from the hospital at Dhar. 47. This takes us to the claim for general damages. The trial Court held it proved that the plaintiff was required to suffer severe bodily pain and mental anguish as a result of injuries caused by acid burns to a considerable extent immediately after the incident and to a lesser extent until he was discharged from the hospital at Dhar. He had moreover to suffer mentally for permanent disfiguration of his face due to scalds and scars. For the former it awarded Rs. 3,000 and for the latter Rs. 1,000. On the principles discussed above while dealing with the case of Ganpat, I do not think award of the aforesaid sum can be said to be high or liberal as to justify our interference. The plaintiff therefore held entitled to Rs. 4,564-14-0 for special and general damages. 48. The appeal preferred by the State is therefore partly allowed and plaintiff's claim is reduced from Rs. 5,600 to Rs. 4564-14-0 with pro-tanto costs. ORDER IN APPEAL NO. 24 OF 1960 49. The appeal preferred by the State against Ganpat is partly allowed and plaintiff's claim is reduced from Rs.7,200 to Rs. 6,881-6-0 with pro-tanto costs. Plaintiff's cross-objections are dismissed with costs. ORDER IN APPEAL NO. 25 OF 1960 50. The appeal preferred by the State against plaintiff Ramkishan is partly allowed and plaintiff's claim is reduced from Rs. 5,600 (five thousand six hundred) to Rs. 4,564-14-0 (Rupees four thousand five hundred sixty four and annas fourteen only) with pro-tanto costs.