PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. ( 1 ) PLAINTIFF Dharam Pal was appointed as a sweeper under RBI vide appointment letter dated 14. 5. 1990. He worked till 25. 10. 2000 and claims that his services were illegally terminated. He could not find suitable employment and appears to be a person who takes things very casually in life. Probably, his social upbringing was such that he does not even bother to inform his family members what he is doing. This behaviour of his, unfortunately for him, constitutes a part of the cause which has necessitated the present suit. ( 2 ) DHARAM Pal claims that in early March, without informing his family, he went to Moradabad to visit his maternal uncle. Admittedly, on 16. 3. 2002 vide exhibit P-1 defendant wrote a letter to Dharam Pal's wife requesting her to collect some dues payable to Dharam Pal. The said letter referred to Dharam Pal as (Late dharam Pal ). ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff since his family had not heard about him, his wife, an uneducated lady believed the communication sent by his ex-employer. He claims that she believed that the defendant must have made proper inquiries before writing the letter and referring to her husband as a dead person. She informed the other family members. There was sorrow and mourning in the house and the atmosphere was one of sadness. Everybody started crying and weeping. Mother of Dharam Pal aged 59 years is stated to have suffered a stroke and almost escaped death. Thereafter, relatives, family friends and fellow members of the caste to which the plaintiff belongs are stated to have impressed upon his wife to observe the 13th day ceremony when a person dies. This ceremony 'terahvi' is stated to have been performed. Dharam Pal claims to have returned to his house. To the utter shock of the family, they thought that a ghost has come. He claims that since he was publicly proclaimed dead, persons in the neighbourhood and his friends started subjecting him to ridicule and he became a butt of jokes. He was referred to as a ghost. He caused a communication to be sent to the Reserve Bank inquiring about the circumstances under which he was referred to as a dead person. Reply Ex. P-2 was sent on 8. 4. 2002 wherein expressing regret for the letter dated 16. 3. He was referred to as a ghost. He caused a communication to be sent to the Reserve Bank inquiring about the circumstances under which he was referred to as a dead person. Reply Ex. P-2 was sent on 8. 4. 2002 wherein expressing regret for the letter dated 16. 3. 2002, rbi wrote that by mistake (trutivash) he was referred to in the letter as late, believing that he had died (Aapko mrit samajh kar ). ( 4 ) ON the facts aforestated present suit was filed claiming damages in sum of rs. 50 lacs. ( 5 ) THE suit has been filed in the month of March, 2003. Court fee in sum of rs. 51,140/- has been affixed. ( 6 ) DEFENCE of the defendant is that no ritual or ceremony was performed as alleged by the plaintiff by his wife thinking him to be dead. That the offending letter was an inadvertent clerical mistake. Expressing regrets for the error it is stated that no cause has accrued to the plaintiff to file the present suit. ( 7 ) 3 issues were framed on 20. 4. 2004 as under: (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages as claimed? - (OPP) (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 18% p. a. on the amount of damages as claimed in the suit? - (OPP) (iii) Relief? ( 8 ) BESIDES examining himself as PW-1, plaintiff has examined his wife as pw-2. Needless to state, in their examination-in-chief, plaintiff and his wife have reiterated what has been stated in the plaint. Relevant for the purposes of the present suit is that no documentary evidence or evidence towards expenses incurred when the 'terahvi' ceremony, stated to have been performed, has been led when plaintiff and his wife gave evidence. ( 9 ) THE defendant has examined Shri U. C. Lohani, Assistant General Manager as the solitary witness who has deposed that the offending letter Ex. P-l was an inadvertent clerical mistake. He has stated that none was negligent or irresponsible when the letter was issued. ( 10 ) TO succeed, plaintiff has to establish negligence on the part of the defendant. P-l was an inadvertent clerical mistake. He has stated that none was negligent or irresponsible when the letter was issued. ( 10 ) TO succeed, plaintiff has to establish negligence on the part of the defendant. ( 11 ) A person is said to be negligent when he does not desire the consequences and does not act in order to produce the desired result but is indifferent, casual and careless, not bothered whether something happens or not when he does or abstains from doing a particular act. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those circumstances which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. ( 12 ) NEGLIGENCE is usually accompanied by inadvertence, but it is not the same thing. Carelessness as to possible consequences very often results in failure to bring those conclusions in mind i. e. inadvertence. ( 13 ) COMMONLY therefore, the careless person not only does not intend the consequences but does not even advert to it. What is possible or probably does not occur to his mind. He may not intentionally cause the harm but certainly exposes others to the risk of it. ( 14 ) TO my mind, an attitude of mental indifference to obvious risks is nothing but a facet of negligence. ( 15 ) WHILE expressing regret to the plaintiff, vide letter dated 8. 4. 2002, Ex. P-2, as noted above, defendant has admitted that reference to the plaintiff as a dead person was a mistake. Word used by the defendant in the letter which is in devnagari script is 'trutivash'. Further, in the letter it has been admitted that plaintiff was referred to as a dead person believing him to be a dead person. ( 16 ) WHAT induced the belief in the officer who issued the letter has not been brought out by the defendant. The obvious conclusion is that the author of the letter acted with gross inadvertence bordering on gross negligence. Indifferent attitude is writ large in the offending letter. I hold it to be a case of gross negligence. ( 17 ) MR. The obvious conclusion is that the author of the letter acted with gross inadvertence bordering on gross negligence. Indifferent attitude is writ large in the offending letter. I hold it to be a case of gross negligence. ( 17 ) MR. Arun Mohan, Senior Counsel for the defendant sought to urge that even if it was a case of negligence by the officer of the defendant who wrote the letter, it was unbelievable that the family members of the plaintiff would believe the same on the face of it without making any further inquiry. Counsel urged that plaintiff himself admitted that he went to his uncle's house without informing his family members and there was no reason why his family members, on receiving the offending letter, made no attempt to lodge a report with the police so that his dead body could be recovered or forthat matter did not cause any inquiry to be made from the employer as to how the employer came to know that the plaintiff had died. Counsel urged that the plaintiff has obviously cooked up a cock and bull story to extract money from the defendant. ( 18 ) IT is true that the conduct of the family members of the plaintiff is contrary to what a normal person would do when somebody in the family goes missing and the ex-employer sends a letter referring to the missing person as a dead person. Normal conduct would be that an inquiry would be made from the ex-employer as to how it came to know about the death and thereafter attempts would be made to involve the police so that the dead body could be recovered. But, keeping in mind the social background of the plaintiff, and his family, the behaviour of the family is not peculiar. I may note that in her cross-examination, plaintiff's wife, Saraswati devi has stated that when she received the letter she went to the office of the defendant at R. K. Puram to enquire about what had happened but was turned away by the bank officials. I have no reasons to disbelieve her and there is every possibility that she went to the office of RBI but was turned away with indifference as she is a poor illiterate lady. ( 19 ) PLAINTIFF s family is not only poor but they are illiterate. I have no reasons to disbelieve her and there is every possibility that she went to the office of RBI but was turned away with indifference as she is a poor illiterate lady. ( 19 ) PLAINTIFF s family is not only poor but they are illiterate. Their conduct has to be evaluated on the touchstone of how ignorant persons in India behave and react to circumstances. ( 20 ) MR. Arun Mohan, learned Senior Counsel argued that from the case pleaded by the plaintiff it is evident that he is a callous person. Learned Counsel made said submissions in the context of the admission of the plaintiff that for nearly 3 weeks he remained away from his house without informing his family members of his whereabouts. ( 21 ) MAY be, the aforesaid evidence suggests the plaintiff is an irresponsible person but that is not a crime. I fail to understand the relevance of this in the context of the issue of negligence by the defendant. It may be of some relevance in determining the compensation. ( 22 ) A reasonable person can certainly foresee the damage that may be caused by declaring a living human as dead and communicating the same to his family. Callousness in letters written by Government officials is being noticed in various judicial pronouncements and at least in my Court, if not every third, at least every fourth litigation involving the Government or its instrumentalities reflects callousness and casualness shown by Government servants or employees of agencies under the Government. ( 23 ) ON issue No. 1 I accordingly hold that since negligence is established, plaintiff is entitled to damages. ( 24 ) BUT, not as claimed. Plaintiff has not claimed any pecuniary damages save and except on account of 'terahvi' ceremony. No evidence has been led as to what amount was spent by the family on the said ceremony. Unfortunately, plaintiffs wife gave no figure when she appeared in the witness box. ( 25 ) PLAINTIFF's family members who suffered the trauma have not joined as plaintiffs and therefore I cannot award any sum towards the trauma faced by the family members. ( 26 ) ONLY claimant before me is the plaintiff. He did not suffer any trauma when the offending letter was received. ( 25 ) PLAINTIFF's family members who suffered the trauma have not joined as plaintiffs and therefore I cannot award any sum towards the trauma faced by the family members. ( 26 ) ONLY claimant before me is the plaintiff. He did not suffer any trauma when the offending letter was received. But, he claims that he has become a butt of jokes in his social circle as his friends and neighbours have started calling him a ghost because he was proclaimed dead and has re-surfaced. ( 27 ) UNFORTUNATELY, plaintiff has not deposed that due to his being treated as a joke by the society he has started suffering from a loss of confidence and/or is shunned or avoided by others. ( 28 ) THE term compensation as stated in the Oxford Dictionary signifies what is given in recompense; an equivalent rendered. Damages on the other hand constitute the sum of money claimed or adjudged to be paid in compensation for loss or injury sustained; the value estimated in money for something lost or withheld. ( 29 ) PERFECT compensation can hardly be quantified and money cannot renew a battered frame or a shattered mind. Judicial pronouncements have not been able to formulate a uniform rule for measuring value of human life as also the value for enjoying human life. ( 30 ) THE rule of law requires that the wrongs should not remain unredressed. A person committing a wrong should be liable in an action for damages. Law of torts is founded on the principle that every injury must have a remedy. ( 31 ) I could not search for an equivalent case of the kind brought before me. However, taking guidance from the principles under the Motor Vehicles Act and other decisions where non-pecuniary damages have been granted, I note that on account of pain and suffering, depending upon the age and the social background of a person damages between Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- have been awarded by courts. ( 32 ) IN the decision reported as 99 (2002) DLT 307, United India Insurance v. Mohinder Kaur, on account of pain and suffering of the mother and the sisters of the deceased, Rs. 10,000/- was awarded as damages. In the decision reported as 59 (1995) DLT 761, S. R. Subramanium v. Kashmir Singh, to the injured, rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and pain was awarded. 10,000/- was awarded as damages. In the decision reported as 59 (1995) DLT 761, S. R. Subramanium v. Kashmir Singh, to the injured, rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and pain was awarded. A person wrongly arrested by the police under a mistaken identity was awarded a monetary compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for infringement of personal liberty and loss of reputation by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported as 1993 Voi. III. AD (Delhi) 497, Hukum Singh v. State. ( 33 ) AFORESAID 3 decisions are noted by me with the limited object of referring to judicial trends in awarding non-pecuniary damages. ( 34 ) OF course, there are decisions where due to loss of reputation or honour, a person is able to establish, by direct evidence, that he has fallen in esteem of persons in his social circle and in view of evidence led higher damages have been awarded, but in the present case I find no such evidence. ( 35 ) CONSIDERING the circumstances under which the plaintiff found himself and having no reasons to disbelieve when he states that he has become a butt of jokes in his social circle I award damages to the plaintiff in sum of Rs. 10,000/ -. The damages awarded are against the first defendant. ( 36 ) BEFORE bringing the curtains down I must record a very disturbing feature. Counsel for the plaintiff has led the plaintiff up a garden path. As noted above, plaintiff has paid Court fee of nearly Rs. 52,000/- as he has claimed damages in sum of Rs. 50 lacs. I would have expected from his Counsel to have told the plaintiff that keeping in view his humble background, the social status and the facts of the case showing indifference and negligence by his ex-employer, in view of the judicial trend, plaintiff would not get the quantum of damages which he has claimed. For the plaintiff, present decision would be no relief. For him it would be case of operation successful, patient died. Even after winning the battle plaintiff would find himself out of pocket. ( 37 ) PLAINTIFF would be entitled to costs. Needless to state re-imbursement of the Court fee would be in proportion to the sum decreed. For the plaintiff, present decision would be no relief. For him it would be case of operation successful, patient died. Even after winning the battle plaintiff would find himself out of pocket. ( 37 ) PLAINTIFF would be entitled to costs. Needless to state re-imbursement of the Court fee would be in proportion to the sum decreed. ( 38 ) ON issue No. 2, I direct that the sum decreed would be paid to the plaintiff with interest @ 9% p. a. from date of the suit till date of payment. Ordered accordingly.