JUDGMENT HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH These appeals and Cross Objections are directed against the judgment and decree dated 24th March, 2003 passed by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 5671 of 1992 which was filed by Mr Ashok D. Agrawal, for compensation of Rs.5 crores on account of the injuries sustained by him at age of 30 years in an air crash near the Ahmedabad Airport on 19th October, 1988 involving an aircraft of the Indian Airlines Corporation in which the plaintiff was traveling as a passenger. The trial Court awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.61,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The trial Court held the Indian Airlines Corporation (“the Indian Airlines”) and the Airport Authority of India (“the Airport Authority”) liable to pay the compensation amount in ratio of 70 : 30 respectively. BASIC FACTS & HISTORY OF LITIGATION 2. The aircraft involved in the accident was a basic series Boeing 737 Aircraft VT-EAH and was on its daily schedule flight IC-113 from Bombay to Ahmedabad in the morning of 19.10.1988. The aircraft was carrying on board 135 persons including 6 crew members (pilot, co-pilot and 4 cabin crew) and 129 passengers (124 adults + 5 children). The flight took off from Bombay at 06.05 hours in the morning. The pilot reported overhead of Ahmedabad at 0647 IST. The aircraft crashed on the outskirts of village Chiloda - Kotarpur, near Noble Nagar Housing Society, near Ahmedabad. The plane crashed at a distance of 2540 metres from the beginning of runway 23 on extended central line of the runway in a paddy field at 6.53 hours in the morning. In this air crash 124 passengers and 6 crew including pilot and co-pilot lost their lives on the spot. 5 passengers escaped with serious injuries, but 3 of them succumbed to the injuries later on in the hospital. 2 passengers survived, viz. Mr Vinod Rewa Shankar Tripathi and the present plaintiff. Mr Ashok Agarwal. Thus in all, out of 135 persons on board, 133 persons including the plaintiff's wife and daughter lost their life. 3. These appeals arise from one of the civil suits filed for compensation claimed in respect of death of 35 passengers and injuries to one passenger, who were travelling in the said Indian Airlines flight which crashed near the Ahmedabad Airport on 19th October, 1988. 3. These appeals arise from one of the civil suits filed for compensation claimed in respect of death of 35 passengers and injuries to one passenger, who were travelling in the said Indian Airlines flight which crashed near the Ahmedabad Airport on 19th October, 1988. The suits filed in different Courts were ordered to be tried by the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad. 4. The trial Court held that the accident took place on account of the composite negligence of the Indian Airlines and its employees on the one hand and the Airport Authority and its employees on the other hand in the ratio of 70 : 30 respectively. After giving this common finding in all the suits, the trial Court rendered separate judgments in all the suits quantifying the amounts of compensation and awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The separate judgments of the trial Court, therefore, gave rise to appeals by the Indian Airlines as well as appeals by the Airport Authority and also appeals/cross objections filed by the plaintiffs for enhancement of the compensation amount and/or for enhancing the rate of interest and also for costs of the suits and costs of the appeals. 5. First Appeal No. 1269 of 2004 is filed by the Airport Authority. Cross Objections 30 of 2009 are filed by the original plaintiff claiming higher rate of interest. First Appeal No. 2760 of 2004 is filed by the Indian Airlines Corporation which, during pendency of the appeals, has become National Aviation Company of India Ltd. 6. In the appeals filed by the Airport Authority, at the time of admission of the appeals, interim stay against execution of the decrees was granted upon condition of depositing the amounts for which the trial Court had fixed its liability. The condition was complied with. 7. As far as the Indian Airlines is concerned, the stand of the Airlines is that its liability for damage sustained in the event of death of or injury to a passenger is limited to a sum of Rs.2 lakhs under Rules 17 and 22 of the Second Schedule to the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 read with the notification dated 5.7.1980 issued by the Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation, Government of India under Section 8(2) of the said Act. According to the Indian Airlines, in order to obtain any higher compensation the plaintiffs have to prove under Rule 25 of the said Schedule that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the Airline done recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result, so as to render the limit of liability (Rs.2 lakhs) inapplicable. In view of this stand, the Indian Airlines paid a sum of Rs.2 lakhs for the death of each passenger. Heirs of most of the deceased passengers accepted the amount under protest and without prejudice to their claim for higher amounts. However, the present plaintiff did not accept the amount of Rs.2 lakhs. After the decrees of the trial Court rejecting the defence of the Airlines, the Indian Airlines prayed for interim stay during pendency of the appeals. This Court granted interim stay with a condition to deposit the decretal amounts. The interlocutory orders came to be challenged by the Indian Airlines before the Apex Court. The Apex Court granted unconditional stay and requested this Court to hear the appeals expeditiously. Hence, all the appeals were taken up for final hearing. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION 8. In each of the appeals the following broad issues arose for our consideration :- I. Question of negligence and the burden of proof -as also applicability of Rule 25 of Second Schedule to Carriage by Air Act, 1972. II. Joint and several liability or not :- Whether the concerned defendants are liable to pay the amount of compensation with interest and costs to the plaintiffs under the principle of joint and several liability or whether each of the concerned defendants is liable to pay only such percentage of compensation as is proportionate to the degree of its negligence as may be determined by this Court ? III. Quantum of compensation : What amount of compensation are the plaintiffs entitled to get? IV. Rate of interest : What rate of interest the plaintiffs are entitled to get ? V. Costs : Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get costs of the suit as well as the costs of the appeals from the concerned defendant/s held liable to pay the compensation ? 9. IV. Rate of interest : What rate of interest the plaintiffs are entitled to get ? V. Costs : Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get costs of the suit as well as the costs of the appeals from the concerned defendant/s held liable to pay the compensation ? 9. Except the issue of quantum of compensation, all the other issues are the same in almost all the appeals/cross objections and, therefore, we have discussed all those issues in our judgment rendered on 14.10.2009 in First Appeal Nos. 1346 and 1822 of 2004 with First Appeal No. 91 of 2005 arising from Civil Suit No. 5510 of 1992. In order not to burden the judgments in the other appeals, we are not repeating the discussion on those issues. The present judgment is, therefore, confined to the discussion and findings on the issue of quantum of compensation payable by the concerned defendants to the plaintiff in the suit in question. However, we may only briefly refer to our findings on the other issues for the sake of convenience so as to mould the reliefs accordingly while disposing of these appeals. OUR FINDINGS IN LEAD APPEAL - FA No. 1346 OF 2004 10. In the judgment rendered on 14.10.2009 in First Appeal No. 1346 of 2004 and two connected appeals arising from Civil Suit No. 5510 of 1992, we have held that the accident took place on account of the composite negligence on the part of the Indian Airlines and its employees and the Airport Authority of India and its employees. We have further held that the Indian Airlines and the Airport Authority of India are jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiffs amounts of compensation with interest and costs as aforesaid. We have also held, for the reasons indicated in the said judgment, that the plaintiffs are entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of payment/deposit, instead of interest awarded by the trial Court at the rate of 6% per annum. We have also held that the plaintiffs are entitled to get costs of the suit. PLAINTIFFS' CASE ON QUANTUM 11. We have also held that the plaintiffs are entitled to get costs of the suit. PLAINTIFFS' CASE ON QUANTUM 11. Now we take up for discussion the question of quantum of compensation in the present appeals arising from the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 5671 of 1992, which was filed by Mr Ashok D. Agarwal claiming compensation of Rs.5 crores on account of the injuries sustained by him. The plaintiff contended that the plaintiff suffered severe pain, shock and suffering and also suffered substantially permanent disability to the extent of 85%. The disability of intellectual capacity and memory was assessed at 85% and bodily disability on account of orthopaedic handicaps was assessed at 80%. FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT ON QUANTUM 12. The trial Court assessed and computed the compensation under the following heads :- Loss of income Rs. 20 lacs Pain, shock and suffering Rs. 5 lacs For past medical expenses Rs. 15 lacs For future medical expenses Rs. 15 lacs For attendants, etc. Rs. 5 lacs Decree is for Rs.61 lacs The trial Court also awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum and apportioned liability of the Indian Airlines and the Airport Authority in the ratio of 70 : 30 i.e. Rs.42,70,000/-to be paid by the Indian Airlines and Rs.18,30,000/- to be paid by the Airport Authority. RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON QUANTUM 13. The learned counsel for the Airport Authority and the Indian Airlines have vehemently submitted that the decree passed by the trial Court has awarded unduly large amounts to the plaintiff under all the heads. As regards the compensation for loss of income, it is submitted that the plaintiff has not filed any income-tax returns prior to the date of accident in October, 1988 and the only income-tax return on record of the suit was filed in March, 1989 after the accident. As per the assessment order for the said year i.e. FY 1988-89, AY 1989-90, the Income-tax Officer assessed the annual income of the plaintiff at Rs.1,01,932/-. It is submitted that, therefore, the trial Court erred in assessing the income of the plaintiff at Rs.1,00,000/-. The trial Court also erred in assessing the future income of the plaintiff at Rs.1,50,000/- although there was no evidence about the plaintiff's qualifications or business activities prior to the accident. It is submitted that, therefore, the trial Court erred in assessing the income of the plaintiff at Rs.1,00,000/-. The trial Court also erred in assessing the future income of the plaintiff at Rs.1,50,000/- although there was no evidence about the plaintiff's qualifications or business activities prior to the accident. It is also submitted that the trial Court also erred in adopting the multiplier of 20 years. 14. On the question of past medical expenses, it is submitted on behalf of the defendants that the plaintiff had not produced the necessary documentary evidence to justify the award of Rs.15,00,000/-towards past medical expenses prior to the date of deposition. It is submitted that the statement produced by the plaintiff giving details of the medical expenses incurred abroad gives a total amount of US dollars 37,000 and, therefore, at the foreign exchange rate of Rs.17.50 per Dollar (during the period of medical treatment) the amount comes to Rs.6,47,500/-. It is further submitted that adding thereto Rs.1,00,000/-towards medical expenses in India, the total amount of medical expenses incurred till the date of deposition was Rs.7,50,000/-. It is next contended that the trial Court also erred in awarding a further sum of Rs.15,00,000/-towards future medical expenses, but the fact that no such treatment was required to be taken between the date of trial in the year 1999 and the date of hearing of these appeals on 7.8.2009 gives the indication that the plaintiff has made an exaggerated claim and the trial Court erred in passing the decree awarding such amount. 15. It is also contended on behalf of the Airport Authority and the Indian Airlines that the trial Court erred in awarding Rs.5 lakhs as compensation for pain, shock and suffering and Rs. 5 lakhs for attendant charges. 16. On the other hand, Mr Subhash Barot, learned advocate for the original plaintiff has supported the judgment of the trial Court in so far as the decree is passed for compensation amount of Rs.61 lakhs, but has only challenged that part of the decree by which interest is awarded at the rate of 6% per annum and it is prayed that the interest be awarded at the rate of 15% per annum. DISCUSSION 17. DISCUSSION 17. At the outset, we may refer to the settled legal principle, reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court speaking through Hon'ble Mr Justice SB Majmudar (as His Lordship then was) in Mohamed Hanif Dallu v. Lunkaran Ganpatram Sharma, 1980 GLR 412 , that “in disablement cases, the compensation awards are always higher than even in cases of death because the compensation has to be given to a living victim, both for his personal loss and for the economic loss. The principles laid down in such cases can be summarized in three propositions as under :- (1) Bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles a plaintiff to damages, and that the amount of damages varies according to the gravity of the injury; (2) deprivation may bring with it three consequences loss of earnings or earning capacity, expenses of having to pay others for what otherwise he would do for himself and loss of enjoyment of life or a diminution in full pleasures of living; (3) in considering the deprivation, the Court should have regard to the gravity and degree of the deprivation, that is to say, whether one or more limbs has been lost, the duration of the deprivation, and the degree of awareness of the deprivation. It has been further observed in the aforesaid case that both in England and in this country the settled pattern of awards in personal injury cases is not to award merely token damages but to grant substantial amounts on both the head of personal loss as well as economic loss. Of course, in order to avoid any overlapping a global estimate had to be made of the all-told loss.” ASSESSMENT OF INCOME/PROSPECTIVE INCOME 18. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties and given anxious consideration to the rival submissions. Coming to the first head of compensation i.e. compensation for loss of income, it is clear from the nature of injuries suffered by the plaintiff and also the extent of disability [which will be discussed hereinafter while discussing the head of compensation for pain, shock and suffering and past and future medical expenses] that the plaintiff has suffered a total loss of earning capacity and, therefore, the compensation will have to be assessed on that basis. Considering the income of the plaintiff on the date of the accident in October 1988, we have to assess the potential income of the plaintiff for assessing the loss of future earning capacity. There is no dispute about the fact that the plaintiff was aged 30 years on the date of the accident. The plaintiff is not shown to have any particular educational qualifications, but it is the plaintiff's case that he was a partner in several partnership firms engaged in various businesses and that on account of the severe injuries suffered by the plaintiff in the air crash, the plaintiff is not able to do any business. It was also the case of the plaintiff before the trial Court that the plaintiff was filing income-tax returns before the accident also, but inspite of several opportunities given by the trial Court, no such returns were produced except the income-tax return for the financial year 1988-89 which was obviously filed in March, 1989 showing total income of Rs.77,030/-. In the assessment order dated 27.3.1991 at Mark 103/12, the plaintiff is shown to have business income as he has share in the income of three partnership firms called Shree Ganesh Trading Co. (Rs.11,361/-), 25% share from M/s Ashok Textile Industries (Rs.69,493/-) and 40% share from M/s Punit Fabrics (Rs.20,187/-), aggregating to Rs.1,00,781/-. The share in the income of M/s Ashok Textile Industries and M/s Punit Fabrics was determined on the basis of the returns filed by the said partnership firms and the assessment orders dated 27.3.1990 and 27.3.1991 respectively. The said assessment orders were not exhibited, but even taking the said assessment orders into consideration, it is clear that the income-tax return was for the financial year ended 31.3.1989 and the return was filed after the accident. Since no income-tax returns were produced for the prior period inspite of several adjournments sought by the plaintiff for that purpose and granted by the trial Court, the plaintiff's claim that his annual income was Rs. 1 lakh per annum cannot be accepted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to estimate the annual income of the plaintiff at the time of the accident at Rs.60,000/-. 19. 1 lakh per annum cannot be accepted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to estimate the annual income of the plaintiff at the time of the accident at Rs.60,000/-. 19. As per the settled legal position, while determining the datum figure of income for computing the damages for loss of income, the Court is required to consider not only the income which the plaintiff was earning on the date of the accident, but the Court is also required to ascertain what would have been the future income of the plaintiff had he not met with the accident in question. The principles for this determination now settled by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) SCC 121in the following terms for assessing future income of the deceased can also be applied to the victim in an injury case :- 24. In Susamma Thomas [ (1994) 2 SCC 176 ] this Court increased the income by nearly 100% in Sarla Dixit [ (1996) 3 SCC 179 ] the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah [(2003) 2 SCC 148] the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of the imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words “actual salary” should be read as “actual salary less tax”). The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardise the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.” [emphasis supplied] 20. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.” [emphasis supplied] 20. In view of the above principles, since the plaintiff was aged 30 years on the date of accident, in the facts and circumstances of the case, 50% raise in the income can be considered for the purpose of computation of compensation for loss of income and, therefore, the potential income of the plaintiff can be assessed at Rs.90,000/- per annum. DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES 21. We find from the judgment of the trial Court that one-third was deducted from the assessed potential income. However, such deduction is to be made in case of a fatal accident, because if the deceased had survived, he would have spent about one-third of his income on himself and the remaining amount on the family. In the instant case, it is an injury case and not a case of fatal accident. Moreover, the plaintiff lost his wife as well as his daughter in the accident and, therefore, if the plaintiff had not suffered any injury, the plaintiff would have had the entire income available for himself. On an overall view of the matter, therefore, we are of the view that Rs.90,000/- should be taken as the datum figure of compensation for computing loss of future income. SELECTION OF MULTIPLIER 22. Coming to selection of multiplier, in Sarla Verma's case (supra) after considering leading decisions on the subject, the Apex Court has prepared a table for determining the multiplier and has laid down the following principles in para 42 of the judgment :- “42. SELECTION OF MULTIPLIER 22. Coming to selection of multiplier, in Sarla Verma's case (supra) after considering leading decisions on the subject, the Apex Court has prepared a table for determining the multiplier and has laid down the following principles in para 42 of the judgment :- “42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” [emphasis supplied] 22.1 We see no difficulty in applying this table to injury cases as well. Since the plaintiff was aged 30 years on the date of the accident, the multiplier of 17 is to be adopted. Accordingly, the compensation for loss of income works out to Rs.90,000 x 17 years = Rs.15,30,000/- COMPENSATION FOR PAIN, SHOCK & SUFFERING 23. Coming to the compensation for pain, shock and suffering, the injuries suffered by the plaintiff, treatment undergone and his permanent disabilities as were noted by Dr Balkisan Desai, Neuro Surgeon in the certificate dated 1.1.1995 at Exh. 78 produced before the trial Court are as under :- “This is to certify that Shri Ashok Agrawal was examined by me for the assessment of his permanent disability. He had head injury following Air-crash on 19/10/88 at Ahmedabad. He had become unconscious after the injury & was admitted at civil hospital, Ahd., in an unconscious state. He was admitted at Bombay hosp., Bombay, on 20/10/88. He was unconscious for about 45 days. He was discharged from the Bombay hosp. On 25/12/88. His first C.T. Scan of the brain showed multiple linear fractures of the frontal bones & haemorrhagic contusion in the right frontal lobe. He was treated conservatively & was discharged with an advise to continue anti-convulsent & for regular follow-ups. He was unconscious for about 45 days. He was discharged from the Bombay hosp. On 25/12/88. His first C.T. Scan of the brain showed multiple linear fractures of the frontal bones & haemorrhagic contusion in the right frontal lobe. He was treated conservatively & was discharged with an advise to continue anti-convulsent & for regular follow-ups. In April “89, inspite of his taking anti-convulsent drug, he started having fits. His dose of anti-convulsent drug was increased. Inspite of it he had fits. So he was put on combination of drugs. His E.E.G. Dost on 4/12/89 was suggestive of epileptic activity. In 89, he had pain in the Rt. hip region & limping on the right side. Orthopaedic surgeon diagnosed it as an avascular necrosis of Rt. femoral head, which is due to drugs-steroids-used for his primary treatment of brain contusion. In 89, he had problem in his strength & field of vision & had consulted opthalmologist. In the opinion of the opthalmologist, the cause of his visual problem is brain injury. He had been to neuro-surgeon, neuro-physician orthopaedic surgeon & opthalmologist regualrly for follow-ups. He has been to me regularly since Feb. 93. Today, he complained of headache, giddiness, foregetfulness, loss of intelligence & memory, visual difficulty & occasional attacks of fits ? one to two such attacks every month, since head injury. Neurologically, he is conscious but confused. His higher functions like intelligence & memory are depleted. He has recent memory loss. He has bystagmus & has ataxia. Rhomberg's is positive. (detailed neurological examination, various tests & their results are in the case paper) He was referred to psychiatrist by me in March 93, for M.Q. & I.Q. which comes low “ M.Q. was 66 & I.Q. was 80, which is subnormal. In my opinion, his present symptoms are due to his head injury, causing severe brain confusion & haemorrhagic contusion & multiple fractures of the skull bone, resulting in an irreversible brain damage, causing permanent disability. His orthopaedic problem was due to his steroid treatment for his brain contusion, which was essential & life saving. His visual problem is due to head injury causing irreversible trauma to the occipital cortex of the brain. His attacks of fits are due to gliosis (healing of his brain contusion causes changes in the glial tissues of the brain called gliosis, which is well seen in follow-up C.T. Scan of the brain. His visual problem is due to head injury causing irreversible trauma to the occipital cortex of the brain. His attacks of fits are due to gliosis (healing of his brain contusion causes changes in the glial tissues of the brain called gliosis, which is well seen in follow-up C.T. Scan of the brain. In my opinion, he will have to take anti-convulsent treatment for few years & inspite of it, he may get fits. His percentage of disability would be about 85%, as a whole according to Kessler's. According to Kessler's : 70% : For his head injury causing severe headache & less frequent epileptic attacks. PLUS 50% : For his chronic partial disturbances of mental abilities (weakening of intellect & memory) 70 + 50 (100-70) = 85% 100” 24. Dr Prabhodh Desai, Orthopaedic Surgeon mentioned in his certificate dated 14.4.1993 Exh. 81 as under :- “MR. ASHOK AGARWAL AGE : 34 YEARS Mr. Ashok Agarwal was involved in and sustained injuries as a result of an aircrash on 19-10-1988 at Ahmedabad airport. He was treated initially at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, for head injury and fracture of the right fibula in its lower third. He was then transferred to Bombay hospital for management of his head injuries and it is reported that he was unconscious for about 40 days. When ambulation was started a couple of months after the injury, he started complaining of pain and limp in his right hip. X-ray taken at that time revealed post-traumatic subluxation of right hip and arthritic as well as degenerative changes of cartilage of the head of femur as well as extra articular calcification. He continued to complain of considerable pain and restriction of movements and gradually developed a flexion-abduction deformity of the joint. He was thereafter seen by various orthopaedic surgeons who advised him to undergo an operation for total hip replacement. Considering his very young age it was advised that he should have cementless joint replacement. His other reports also indicate that he had problems with his vision and also had development post-traumatic epilepsy. The operation for total hip replacement of the right hip was performed by Dr. C.S. Ranavat at hospital for special surgery, New York on 12th April, 1990. After this operation he had made progressive recovery and has no pain in the hip joint. The operation for total hip replacement of the right hip was performed by Dr. C.S. Ranavat at hospital for special surgery, New York on 12th April, 1990. After this operation he had made progressive recovery and has no pain in the hip joint. When examined in the month of January he was found to have the following findings. Body weight 70 kgs. Walks with a very slight limp and no shortening was found on tape measurement. Right hip Left hip (normal) No flexion deformity Flexion 120° 160° Abduction 35° 45° Abduction 30° 20° IR 40° 60° ER 40° 60° Right thigh showed wasting of thigh by ?”. The knee joint was found to be stable and quadriceps power good i.e. Grade - 5. There was no swelling of the feet. Trendelenberg test was negative but he was found to have a tendency to shift a little. As noted above, he continues to complain of limping in his right hip and an unusual gait resulting from it. He also suffers from certain handicaps and limitations which the loss of his own joint has imposed upon him. As is the usual practice, following this operation patient is not allowed to engage in any sports activities like tennis, jogging, skiing and other similar ones. However unlimited walking, cycling and swimming are possible and allowed. Activities like dancing, fast running and other similar ones are not advisable. Mr. Agarwal also complains that in order to keep his weight down as advised he has to be on a continually restricted diet and is deprived of the pleasure good food which is fond of. A combination of restrictions in the form of continuous dieting on one side and sporting activities on the other throw a considerable mental strain on him and deny him the pleasures of both, which he has been enjoying prior to the injuries and which he has always been very fond of. Prior to the injury he used to take an active part in social activities like garba, dancing and others and this he is not able to do now. Prior to the injury he used to take an active part in social activities like garba, dancing and others and this he is not able to do now. The usual history in the cemented hip joints is that depending upon the strains imposed upon it and the quality of surgery, it can last for from 15 to 20 years after which in a great majority of cases it needs a revision which means operation again and insertion of a new joint or failing that leaving behind a flail unstable hip. In the case of uncemented joints the procedure has been started comparatively recently and has been performed on a larger scale in the last 10 to 12 years. It is therefore not possible to predict acurately the eventual outcome and also whether and when will a revision be necessary. However, from the present state of knowledge one can expect a good function for about 10 years. This period will probably get longer with greater experience and also as longer follow up reports will be available with passage of time. Dr. Ranavat has also opined that ?this type of hip surgery could last approximately 10 to 20 years in about 70 to 80% cases?. In the present state of information and knowledge available therefore, we can expect that the joint is not likely to last longer than 15 years and will probably need revision around that time. Looking at his young age of 34 years and life expectancy of 70 years this means that he will require atleast two or three revision operations in his expected life span. Also each revision in less efficient function of the joint in terms of the range of movements, durability and the strains it can take. It is also general knowledge that maximum benefit of function following this operation is achieved in six months to one year and with a passage of nearly 3 years now, further benefit or recovery in his function is not possible. Based on the above history and findings as well as expected outcome of surgery and the possibilities of future operations I estimate his permanent partial disability at 80%.” 25. Dr Hemang Desai, Psychiatrist certified in his certificate dated 22.6.1994 (page 118 of R&P) as under :- “This is to certify that I examined Shri Ashok Agrawal on 23.02.1994 & 01.06.1994. Based on the above history and findings as well as expected outcome of surgery and the possibilities of future operations I estimate his permanent partial disability at 80%.” 25. Dr Hemang Desai, Psychiatrist certified in his certificate dated 22.6.1994 (page 118 of R&P) as under :- “This is to certify that I examined Shri Ashok Agrawal on 23.02.1994 & 01.06.1994. This is also to certify that he suffers from Post traumatic organic brain disorder, having following features. (a) Impaired Concentration. (b) Impaired immediate recent memory. (c) Difficulties in eye hand Coordination. All these are in probability secondary to accidental hand injury and are PERMANENT in nature. He needs repeated neuropsychiatric reevaluation to detect progress in this disability.” 26. In view of the above injuries and the prolonged treatment required to be undergone by the plaintiffs, it appears to us that the compensation of Rs.5 lakhs awarded for pain, shock and suffering and loss of amenities is reasonable. The plaintiff was aged only 30 years at the time of the accident and he will have to live with after-effects of the accident and permanent disabilities and mental incapability for the rest of his life. 27. As regards the compensation for employing attendant and driver in future, since the plaintiff aged 30 years lost his wife and daughter in the same accident and will remain dependent on others for the rest of his life, the amount of Rs.5 lakhs awarded by the trial Court cannot be said to be on the higher side. MEDICAL EXPENSES - PAST & FUTURE 28. Coming to the main bone of contention about medical expenses, the learned counsel for the defendants have seriously challenged the decree of the trial Court on the ground that a sum of Rs.30 lakhs has been awarded towards past and future expensed without adequate evidence on record. Before dealing with this contention, we may note that the trial Court has awarded Rs.15 lakhs towards past medical expenses and another Rs.15 lakhs towards future medical expenses. Before dealing with this contention, we may note that the trial Court has awarded Rs.15 lakhs towards past medical expenses and another Rs.15 lakhs towards future medical expenses. As held by a Division Bench of this Court speaking through Justice PD Desai (as His Lordship then was) in Bharat Premjibhai vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad, (1978) 19 GLR 585, while the rules of procedure require that the past loss be pleaded as special damages and the prospective loss as general damage, there would appear to be no substantive difference between the two, the dividing line depending purely on the accident of the time when the case came up for hearing i.e. the date of deposition of the injured plaintiff. 29. The learned counsel for the defendants have vehemently submitted that the plaintiff had not led any evidence to justify the award of Rs.15 lakhs towards past medical expenses. As already indicated above, the plaintiff had spent 37,000 US Dollars for treatment abroad and Rs.1 lakh for treatment in India. At the foreign exchange rate of Rs.17.50 per dollar, the plaintiff had incurred expenses of only Rs.6.50 lakhs for medical treatment abroad and further expenses of Rs.1 lakh for treatment in India, other than the treatment at Bombay where the plaintiff was required to be rushed in an unconscious state and the Indian Airlines had paid for the said treatment at the Bombay hospital. We find considerable force in the submission made on behalf of the defendants that there is no evidence of past medical expenses of Rs.15 lakhs. It is true that for various medicines or miscellaneous medical expenses, the plaintiff may not be in a position to produce bills, but when the plaintiff has given the accounts of the expenses abroad for which he had to obtain permission from the Reserve Bank of India and when the bills of such expenses only indicate that the plaintiff had incurred a sum of Rs.6.50 lakhs abroad and Rs.1 lakh in India, we may at the most award another Rs.2,50,000/- for miscellaneous medical expenses at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month from the date of the accident till the date of deposition. But that would also make the aggregate sum of medical expenses incurred at only Rs.10,00,000/-. 30. But that would also make the aggregate sum of medical expenses incurred at only Rs.10,00,000/-. 30. As regards the compensation for future medical expenses, it is true that on the date of deposition before the trial Court the plaintiff may not be in a position to give any exact idea about treatment which may be required by him in future, but as per the settled legal position, for compensation for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has only one cause of action and, therefore, the compensation for past as well as future medical expenses has to be awarded in the same suit. In Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh, 2003 (3) SCC 274, the Apex Court has enunciated the following principle :- “in a case where injury to a victim requires periodical medical expenses, fresh award cannot be passed or previous award cannot be reviewed when the medical expenses are incurred after finalization of the compensation proceedings. Hence, the only alternative is that at the time of passing of final award, the Tribunal/Court should consider such eventuality and fix compensation accordingly. No one can suggest that it is improper to take into account expenditure genuinely and reasonably required to be incurred for future medical expenses. Further medical expenses required to be incurred can be determined only on the basis of fair guesswork after taking account increase in the cost of medical treatment.” 31. In his deposition at Exh. 112 Dr Prabhodh Desai stated that the life of hip replacement operation is about 15 years. It is true that in his cross examination, Dr Prabhodh Desai stated that the plaintiff's condition was satisfactory after the hip joint operation and that he did not notice any deterioration after about 10 years of the first hip replacement surgery. But since the deposition of Dr Prabhodh Desai was given only 10 years after the surgery, it would not mean that the plaintiff will not require any second surgery for hip replacement in future. Dr Desai had mentioned in his certificate dated 14.04.1993 at Exh. 81 as under :- “In the present state of information and knowledge available, we can expect that the joint is not likely to last longer than 15 years and will probably need revision around that time. Dr Desai had mentioned in his certificate dated 14.04.1993 at Exh. 81 as under :- “In the present state of information and knowledge available, we can expect that the joint is not likely to last longer than 15 years and will probably need revision around that time. Looking at his young age of 34 years and life expectancy of 70 years, this means that he will require atleast two or three revision operations in his expected life span. Also each revision is less efficient function of the joint in terms of the range of movements, durability and the strains it can take.” It is, therefore, clear that the possibility of the plaintiff requiring another hip replacement surgery in future cannot be ruled out, merely because he may not have undergone such a surgery between the date of recording evidence before the trial Court in the year 2000 and the date of hearing of this appea 08-2009). When the plaintiff is aged about 51 years today, he still has anoth to 30 years of expected life span and during remaining life span (age of 51 years), he is likely to need more medical attention than before. Considering his past medical expenses before the date of evidence were about Rs.10 lakh amount of Rs.10 lakhs can be awarded as compensation amount for future me expenses. Of course, on this amount, interest is not to be paid from the date o suit, but is to be paid from the date of judgment of the trial Court. TOTAL COMPENSATION 32. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to get the following amoun compensation :- Rs. 15,30,000/-For loss of income Rs. 10,00,000/-For past medical expenses. Rs. 5,00,000/-For pain, shock and suffering undergone by the plaintiff Rs. 5,00,000/-For attendant charges Rs. 10,00,000/-For future medical expenses Rs. 45,30,000/-Total compensation 33. Coming to the question of rate of interest, the trial Court has awarded in at the rate of 6% per annum. Mr Barot, learned counsel for the plaintif vehemently submitted that the suit was filed in the year 1990 and the decree passed in March, 2004. Only the Airport Authority has deposited 30% o decretal amount. It is submitted the rate of interest awarded by the banks on FDRs was ranging between 10 to 15% between the years 1990 and 2004 and that the current rate of interest is also about 8%. Only the Airport Authority has deposited 30% o decretal amount. It is submitted the rate of interest awarded by the banks on FDRs was ranging between 10 to 15% between the years 1990 and 2004 and that the current rate of interest is also about 8%. It is, therefore, submitted that interest may be awarded at the rate of 12% per annum. It is further submitted that the period under consideration is right from 1990 onwards and the interest is awarded at simple rate and not at the compound rate, this may also be taken into consideration. On the other hand, the learned advocates for the defendants have supported that the judgment and decree of the trial Court in so far as the rate of interest is concerned. 34. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties, and considering the fact that the litigation has spread over last about 20 years, and only 30% of the compensation awarded by the trial Court has been deposited, for the reasons recorded in our judgment rendered on 14.10.2009 in lead appeal ? First Appeal No. 1346 of 2004, and taking into consideration that compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- is awarded for future medical expenses, we award interest in two parts :- (i) on the compensation of Rs.35,30,000/-, simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of deposit/payment. (ii) on the compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for future medical expenses, simple interest will be paid at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of judgment of the trial Court till the date of deposit/payment. FINAL ORDER 35. The plaintiff is entitled to recover jointly and severally from the National Aviation of Company India Ltd. (“the Airlines” for short) and the Airport Authority of India compensation of Rs.45,30,000/- (Rupees Forty five lacs thirty thousand only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on Rs.35,30,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of deposit and with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on Rs.10,00,000/- from the date of judgment of the trial Court till the date of deposit/payment. The plaintiff is entitled to recover costs of the suit as quantified in the decree of the trial Court including the maximum court fee stamp of Rs.15,000/- on the plaint. The plaintiff shall bear his costs of these appeals. The plaintiff is entitled to recover costs of the suit as quantified in the decree of the trial Court including the maximum court fee stamp of Rs.15,000/- on the plaint. The plaintiff shall bear his costs of these appeals. The defendants shall bear their own costs of the suit as well as of these appeals. 36. For the reasons already recorded in our judgment rendered on 14.10.2009 in First Appeal No. 1346 of 2004 and connected appeals, the Indian Airlines Corporation (now the National Aviation Company of India Ltd.) and the Airport Authority of India are held jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation with interest and costs. 37. Since there is no dispute about the fact that the plaintiff had not accepted the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- which was offered by the Indian Airlines, there would be no question of deducting or adjusting any such amount against the compensation awarded under this judgment. 38. After adjustment of the amount deposited by the Airport Authority in compliance with the conditional stay order, the balance amount shall be deposited by the National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (formerly Indian Airlines Corporation) and the Airport Authority of India Ltd. before the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad by 31st December, 2009. 39. Although the amount of compensation is reduced from Rs. 61 lakhs to Rs.45.30 lakhs, since the rate of interest is raised from 6% to 9% per annum and the Indian Airlines had not deposited any amount in view of the joint and several liabilities of the Airlines and the Airport Authority, there will be no question of the plaintiff being required to refund any amount to the Airport Authority. Hence, the bank guarantee furnished by the plaintiff stands discharged. 40. The appeals and the Cross Objections are accordingly disposed of in the above terms. At this stage, Ms Sonali Desai for Ms Minoo Shah, learned advocate for the Indian Airlines, now National Aviation Company of India Ltd. prays that operation of this judgment and order may be stayed for three months to enable the Company to have further recourse in accordance with law. Since we have already granted time to National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (formerly Indian Airlines Corporation) and the Airport Authority of India Ltd. to deposit the compensation amounts with interest and costs by 31st December, 2009, the prayer is rejected.