1. ' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---Through this suit the plaintiff seeks recovery of Rs.127,15,000 as compensation/damages on account of various injuries suffered by him by allegedly coming into contact with electricity energized pillar box installed on a road side by the defendant KESC.
2. ' The facts leading to the filing of the present suit as pleaded are that on 4-6-1997 at about 2-00 p.m. The plaintiff incidentally and unwarily came into contact with a part of the pillar box situated at the edge of the main road and suffered heavy electric shock - as the said pillar was throughout energized due to some electrical defect and or lack of maintenance/negligence on the part of the defendants. The Plaintiff consequently due to the high voltage/current sticked to the pillar box and suffered severe burn on his right hand and his male organ. It is asserted. . That the nearest complaint centre of the defendant KESC was immediately informed by passerby but no one came forward to accord any help, the plaintiff ultimately was separated by a social worker by placing wooden planks and thereafter was immediately taken to the Abbasi Shaheed Hospital where he was provided first aid and necessary dressings. The plaintiff thereafter was referred to the National Institute of Child Health (JPMC) and was admitted on the same day and the following injuries were observed owing to electrocution.
(i) Injuries sustained on right palm.
(ii) Injuries sustained on right forearm.
(iii) Injuries sustained on right perennial region.
(iv) Condition of the right hand was found to be, very bad as all tendons were torn and skin was black and vessel coagulated.
(v) The area of penis and pelvis was sloughed.
(vi) Base of urethra was burnt and so the penis was contracted.
3. ' It is further claimed that looking at the condition of the plaintiff and to restrict the gangrene which was progressing due to the injuries suffered on the right forearm, the doctors on 12-6-1997 amputated the right arm of the plaintiff from below elbow stump. The plaintiff thereafter was discharge from the hospital on 27-6-1997 with the instructions to follow up the direction and to report back for operation of the penis contracture and refashioning of the stumps. The plaintiff again was admitted to N.I.C.H. On 24-11-1997 whereon refashioning of the stump was completed by major surgery on the amputed right forearm, but could not be operated for penile contracture on account of his weakness. The plaintiff again was admitted in NICH on 18-2-1998 and was operated on 19-2-1998 for penile contracture and thereafter was discharged on 25-2-1998 with the instructions of follow up further surgery.
4. ' It was asserted that the injuries leading to amputation of the right arm and the pelvic region including his mail organ owing to electrocution were absolutely on account of negligence, lack of care, malfeasance, mis-feasance, non-feasance and an actionable wrong as the defendant No.5 had failed to maintain and keep their electric installation located on the main road in proper manner and to ensure that no live parts capable of being touched are exposed. It was lastly asserted that the said injuries have considerably affected the plaintiff mentally, physically and monetarily, therefore the plaintiff is entitled to be compensated in terms of money to the extent of Rs.127,15,000 the breakup whereof is reproduced in extenso:- i.Damages for permanent disabilities and consequent hardships and disadvantages that the plaintiff suffered and will suffer for the rest of his life the plaintiff was of 7 years of age at the time of incident.Rs.20,00,000 ii.Damages for loss of amenities by the plaintiff on account of traumatic fractures.Rs.20,00,000 iiiDamages for shortening expectancy of life. Rs.5,00,000 iv.Damages for havingugly appearance and deshapping of the body affecting personality and arousing aversion in the eyes of on- lookers and resultant feeling of depression and inferiority in the plaintiff.Rs.5,00,000 v.Damages injuries, shock physical mental suffered plaintiff for nervous extreme pain and agony by the (past and prospective).Rs.10,00,000.00 vi.Damages on account of restricted movement by the plaintiff. Rs.5,00,000.00 vii.Damages on account of being dependent upon other on account of infirmity and need for permanentAttendant/Nurse for looking-after the plaintiff.Rs.10,00,000.00 viiiDamages on account of loss of prospect of marriage in future and thereby for loss Of prospects of having childRs.10,00,000.00 ix.Prospective loss earning on account of permanent disabilities caused to the plaintiff.Rs.35,00,000.00 SPECIAL DAMAGES i.Past and prospective medical expenses as ii.Past and prospective expenses on transportation.Rs.5,30,000.00 Rs.1,27,15,000 ' The defendants filed their written statement wherein they denied the incident for want of knowledge. It was maintained by the defendant that all of its transmission lines and equipments are maintained properly and in accordance with the standard of care and no live part of its installation is ever exposed or installed at accessible place. It was submitted that the defendants have not even received any complaint on 4-6-1997, as after receiving the copy of plaint the record of all complaint centres, feeders, grid stations to find out any tripping of the system on the time, date and place mentioned in the plaint but did not discover any such incident or consequent power failure in its books. The defendant vehemently denied the non-maintenance of any pillar box. It was submitted that the alleged pillar box in fact is a Ring Main Unit (RMU) which earlier was installed on a street in a shopping area but for the purposes of security was shifted to Nazimabad Crossing away from the residential/commercial area. It was maintained that the said RMU is manufactured by a German Firm and it comprises of a steel cabinet with steel doors duly secured by locks, the operative unit whereof carries high voltage of energy and is designed in a manner that no sooner any object or living person comes into contact with its live parts the whole system tripe from its feeder or the grid station. The unit is placed at a height of 2.6; on a RCC structure at a safe place the steel doors whereof cannot be opened or broken into by normal force. It was asserted that the record does not reveal the tripping of the unit, feeders or the grid stations in Nazimabad Circle/Zone on 4-6-1997, nor the defendant received any complaint for such tripping or break down in the area. The unit is still working in the steel cabinet and door with no record to reflect that the cabinet of the. Said RMU having been damaged or broken. It was therefore, asserted that the allegations of negligence and failure to take safety measures are not true nor the defendant is aware of the incident or the injuries as allegedly suffered by the plaintiff, therefore the question of payment of damages as claimed does not arise.
5. ' On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties the following issues were framed:-
(a) Whether the plaintiff received any electric shock and bum injuries on 4-6-1997 from pillar box situated in Chota, Maidan, Nazimabad maintained by the defendant?
(b) Whether the defendant had installed such Ring Main Unit (RMU) (Pillar Box) and it was safe, secured and maintained by the defendant in good order and condition?
(c) Whether the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff? If so, to what extent?
(d) What should the decree be?
6. ' On behalf of the plaintiff the father of the plaintiff stepped into the witness box is next friend and two witnesses namely Muhammad Naeem and K.S. Mujahid Balouch who asserted their presence at the time of occurrence whereas the defendant examined Zahid Rahim, Executive Engineer, Sub- station (MNC) and Hashmat Ali, Officiating Executive Engineer KESC Operation Div-III.
7. ' I have heard at length the arguments of Mr. Nasir Maqsood, learned counsel for the plaintiff. And Mr. Raghib Abdul Baqi, learned counsel for defendant and have considered the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties, the case law relied upon and now intend to give my findings issue wise.
8. ' Taking up the Issue No.l, a perusal of pleading would reflect that the defendants have not denied the incident dated 4-6-1997 on factual plane but have denied it for want of knowledge, by setting up a defence that since the said RMU comprises of Steel cabinet with string Steel door which could not be opened without a key and even if it is opened and any living object comes into its contact, the entire system trips from the feeder and since no complaint of such tripping is on record therefore, no such incident has taken place. On the other hand, the father of the plaintiff who was examined as a next friend categorically deposed that the plaintiff was badly burnt on 4-6-1997, while coming into contact with electrically energized pillar box/RMU installed on the main road at Nazimabad No.2 he also produced a photograph of the offending pillar box as Exh.P/9 such version was duly supported by two eye-witnesses examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 who asserted their presence at the time of incident their deposition was not challenged during cross-examination, there was no suggestion either to the plaintiff or his witnesses to the effect that the plaintiff did not suffer the stated injuries by coming iqto contact with the said Pillar Box/RMU. The defendants on the other hand examined two witnesses Zahid Rahim D.W.l who denied the incident by stating that "It is incorrect that the plaintiff has suffered from electrical shock from this RMU, however, the denial is an improvement to the case of defendants as set up in the written statement and further this witness has admitted in the cross-examination that he came to know about this incident in the year 2003, through his counsel therefore his denial of the incident is immaterial whereas the second witness namely Hashmat Ali who was examined as D.W.3 during cross- examination admitted that the accident took place because the doors of the RMU were broken and it was energized at the time of incident.
9. ' In the circumstances where the defendants have not denied the case of the plaintiff to the extent of suffering injuries on account of electrocution by coming into contact with the said "RMU" in their written statement on factual plane nor any suggestion pf like nature was made to the plaintiff or his witnesses during the cross- examination, moreover one of the witnesses has admitted the fact of such electrocution whereas the other witness has admitted that he came to know about the incident in the year 2003 through his counsel therefore, I have no option but to give my finding on this issue in affirmative.
10. ' As to the issue number 2, the case of the defendants as set up in the written statement appears to be that the RMU in question comprises of steel cabinet with steel doors, secured by lock and there is no record to show that the doors were ever broken or repaired. It is further asserted that the defendant maintains its transmission lines and equipments properly and no live parts are exposed in any electrical equipment. On the other hand the plaintiff as weir as P.W. Muhammad Naeem have deposed that the offending RMU was installed on a road side and at the relevant time was bearing heavy current throughout due to some electrical defect and lack of maintenance and negligence on the part of defendant, the plaintiff has further produced a photograph of the RMU as exhibit P/9 which reflects that the said RMU is without doors and its cables and the bush bar are quite visible. Learned counsel for the defendant during cross- examination, asked several questions regarding exhibit P/9 but there was no suggestion that the photograph is not of the offending RMU. The-photograph exhibit P/9 was also confronted to D.W, Zahid Raheem who admitted that the offending RMU is installed on a service road which otherwise is a thoroughfare and he does not know how the doors of the offending RMU were broken. He also upon seeing exhibit D/9 admitted that the picture reflects that the cables and the bush bar are visible as the cabinets of the RMU are without doors. The other witness namely Hashmat Ali examined as D.W.2 admitted a suggestion that the accident took place because the doors of the RMU in question were broken and it was energized at the time of the accident.
11. ' Since the plaintiff has produced documentary as well as oral evidence to establish that the offending RMU was neither safe, nor properly maintained therefore, the burden had shifted upon the defendant to prove that they had properly maintained their electrical equipments as asserted in their written statement but the defendants have miserably failed to discharge this burden as no one appeared from the maintenance department to dislodge the claim of the plaintiff and to prove otherwise. The defendant has, produced two witnesses, first witness, was from Planning Division whereas the second witness was from Operations.. The first witness admitted that maintenance department is a separate department and at the relevant time he was posted at Division whereas the accident pertains to Division III This witness further admitted that he has come to know about the incident in April 2003 i.e., almost six years after the incident. Likewise the second witness during his cross-examination has very frankly admitted that his department had nothing to do with the maintenance, he has further admitted that he has neither visited the offending RMU before or after the date of incident as such the evidence of both these witnesses is of no use so far as the issue under determination is concerned: ' Upon evaluating the evidence on record and the admission on the part of the defendant's witness as to the condition of the RMU as reflected in the photograph Exh.P./9 leads me to conclude by giving my findings on this issue in negative.
12. ' Coming to issue No.3 regarding entitlement of the plaintiff for compensation and its quantum. It would, indeed be essential to determine first' as to whether the defendants were under a statutory obligation to maintain the offending RMU and it was on account of their negligence or breach of duty to maintain such RMU the plaintiff has suffered such injuries and or the incident would not have happened but on account of such negiigence/breach of duty. Mr. Nasir Maqsood has argued that from the defence as set up' by the defendant in their written statement it established that the offending RMU contained high voltage current and it was obligatory on the part of the defendants to take necessary measures to save the public from its perils and since it is proved that the defendants have failed to perform its statutory obligation to maintain its electrical equipments which caused injuries to the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to compensation as claimed.
13. Mr. Nasir Maqsood has further laid much stress upon the well accepted doctrine of res ipsa loquitor and contended that in the given circumstances the burden was upon the defendant to prove that the incident did not occur on account of their negligence and the defendants had adopted all reasonable precautions to avoid such incident which they have miserably failed to establish.
14. ' In support of his contention learned counsel has placed reliance on the cases of Mrs. Gul Bano and 4 others v. Muhammad Ramzan and another (1982 CLC 1120), Mst. Zaib-un-Nisa and others v.
15. SRTC and another (1982 CLC 1228), Mrs. Nimmy Frances and 5 others v. Muhammad Saeed Qureshi and others (1982 CLC 1703), Abdul Haq and another v. Pakistan Railway Telecommunication Department and others (1987 M LD 898), Spin Gul and 2 others v. Ikramul Haq and another (1987 M LD 2402), Hayat. Services Pakistan Limited v. Kondan (1989 CLC 2153), Qazi Arifuddin and another v. Government of Sindh through Secretary Ministry of Health (PLD 1991 Kar. 2910), Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Limited v. Malik Abdul Habib and other (1993 SCM R 848), Mst. Sakina and 3 others v.
16. M/s. National Logistic Cell (1995 M LD 633), Anis-ur-Rehman v. Government of Sindh (1997 CLC 615), Bibi Khalida v. Government of Sindh (2000 CLC 381), Roshan Bi v. Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd. (2000 CLC 111), Ashiq Masih and others v. Abbott Laboratories Pakistan Ltd. (2001 CLC 913), Mst.
17. Ishrat Irfana v. Federal Government of Pakistan (2001 CLC 928), Shaukat Ali v. KESC (2001 M LD 1845), Shamim Akhtar v. Muhammad Arif Balouch (2001 YLR 821), Mst. Sabira Khatoon and 2 others v.
18. Muhammad Akram Siddiqui (2003 M LD 39), Aijaz and 6 others v. Karachi Transport Corporation (2004 M LD 491), Ehtishamuddin Qureshi v. Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd. (2004 M LD 361).
19. The phrase "res ipsa loquitor" means that the things speak for themselves this doctrine has been acknowledged and defined in various judicial pronouncements. In the case of Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd. v. Abdul Hameed (1993 SCM R 848) it was held that:- "Res ipsa loquitor means that the things speak for themselves. This doctrine is applied firstly, when the things that inflicted the damage was under the sole management and control of the defendant and secondly, that occurrence is such that it would not have happened without negligence and thirdly, that there must be no evidence as to why or how the occurrence took place. In such circumstances defendants have to persuade the Court that accident did not occur on account of their negligence."
20. ' In another case titled as M/s. Hayat Services (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Kondan (1989 CLC 2153) a Division Bench of this Court had observed:- "This maxim means that in all the circumstances of a given case the res speaks and is eloquent because the facts stand unexplained with the result that the natural and reasonable inference from the facts has to be drawn. But it must be made clear that such inference should not be based on conjunctures and surmises. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove the actual cause of accident but in case where it is not possible for him, as such facts are within the exclusive knowledge of the defendant, then in those circumstances, if the incident is proved the defendant is called upon to explain its conduct to bring about the correct and true facts. Due to non-accessibility to vital part of the evidence the plaintiff is put to great disadvantages, therefore, this maxim is applied to avoid the rigors created by procedural difficulties."
21. D It is by now well established principle of law that in an action for damages on account of negligence the burden of proof primarily lies on the plaintiff to establish that he has suffered injuries on account of negligence or omission.On the part of the defendant and for which act or omission the defendant at a law was responsible and if the plaintiff proves that the injury suffered by him could not have resulted except by attributing breach of duty to the defendant then the burden shifts upon the defendant to show that all reasonable pre-Cautions to avoid such injury complained of were adopted. In the instant case Rule 49 of the Electricity Rules, 1937 imposes a duty upon the defendant to construct, install, protect and E maintain all its apparatus ' as far as practicable to prevent danger whereas subrule 3 of Rule 49 provides that "no live parts shall be exposed as to be capable of being touched by person not intended to have access to them. Even the defendant, as evident from para 2 of their written statement, have accepted such obligations/ duty by adopting a defence to the following effect:-- "The defendants have maintained its transmission lines and equipments etc., properly and in accordance, with the standard of care, the defendants equipments, transmission lines and supply lines etc., are properly insulated and installed at safe distance away from normal reach of a person. The defendant is performing its function in accordance with law and Rules prescribed for safety precautions to avoid any mishap, injury or accident. No live part is exposed or installed at accessible place in any electrical equipment. "
22. ' In view of what has been discussed above it leaves no doubt in my mind that the defendants were under a statutory obligation to properly maintain the offending RMU and on account of their negligence and breach of duty to maintain it and by leaving its live parts exposed and capable of being touched by persons not intended to have access to them as evident from Exh.P/9, the plaintiff has suffered injuries as complained of which, of course, could have been avoided in case the defendants were not negligent to maintain their electrical apparatus in accordance with their obligation. Consequently, the plaintiff is found entitled to the damages but of course subject to determination of its quantum.
23. ' Coming to the second portion of the issue, the plaintiff has claimed general as well as special damages and the learned counsel for the plaintiff in order to assert the entitlement of the plaintiff to such damages has placed reliance on the cases of Azizullah v. Jawed A Bajwa (2005 SCM R 1950), Abdul Qadir v. S.K. Abbas Hussain and others (PLD 1997 Kar. 566), Mrs. Rahat Ali v. Dr. Saeed Rehman (2002 CLC 1996) and Nazar Ali Siddiqui v. Pakistan through Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance and 2 others (1986 CLC 1370).
24. The entitlement of the plaintiff to claim pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary losses has not been challenged and even otherwise it is well settled by now that in cases of like nature the plaintiff is not only entitled to the pecuniary losses i.e., what he has actually spent or lost but also to non- pecuniary losses which can not be calculated exactly in terms of money but are granted to mitigate the sufferings and agonies. In the instant case, the plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs.8.5 millions on account of non-pecuniary losses and a sum of Rs.4.215 Millions as past and prospective pecuniary losses. Though the claim of the plaintiff in respect of losses as claimed has not been denied by the defendants but it is for the Court to determine the quantum of compensation on the basis of evidence placed before it and to see that the claim is neither exaggerated nor fanciful and/or unreasonable. Since there exists no yard-stick or formula by which such losses could be measured or translated in terms of money therefore such losses by their very nature are discretionary, however, while exercising such discretion F the Court has to see the effect which such injury may have caused on the quality of life of the person so affected, his sufferings, duration of such pain and its over all impact on his life. In fact the amount of compensation so determined should as nearly as possible put to the party who has suffered in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained such injury.
25. The plaintiff has claimed compensation on account of two injuries suffered by him first on account of amputation of his right arm from mid-arm level and the second on account of having been deprived of his man-hood due to severe electric burn on the base of urethra which resulted in penile contraction. It is claimed by the plaintiff that on account of such injuries he had to undergo various surgeries, he was first admitted to hospital on 12-6-1997 and was subjected to operation regarding amputation of his mid-arm and was discharged on 27-6-1997, he was again admitted on 24-11-1997 for refreshing of stump on the amputated fore-arm and was discharged on 2641- 1997, he was again admitted on 18-2-1998 and was operated for penile contracture and was discharged on 25-24998. He was again admitted on 28-9-1998 for a surgery to release the penile contracture and was discharged on 8-10-1998, on 11-11-2000 he was again admitted for an operation in order to handle the penile deformity and was released on 21-11-2000. It is claimed that such frequent medical and surgical treatment caused the plaintiff to suffer extreme pain, mental anguish, shock, agony and intolerable inconvenience for more than three years. It is asserted that the plaintiff has become absolute crippled and permanently disabled and would not be able to enjoy the life without a hand and the character of manhood. It is claimed that the plaintiff being young boy of seven years was very fond of games like cricket, cycling, but due to such restriction in his movement on account of amputated hand he will not be able to participate in such activities. It is asserted that the plaintiff's expectation of life has also been diminished and he would not only remain dependant upon others for the rest of his life, but such injuries have given the plaintiff an ugly appearance and consequent inferiority complex. It is further asserted that the plaintiff has further become impotent for all practical purposes and will not be able to live a normal marital life.
26. It is also claimed that at the time of the incident the plaintiff under the compelling circumstances was working with a nearby Auto Mechanic and was being paid stipend of Rs.15 to Rs.20 per day, and he would have learnt the work at the age of 15 years and would have started earning Rs.5,000 to Rs.6,000 per month at the age of 18 years and thereafter he might have gone to some Middle East countries and would have earned Rs. 15,000 per month with further increase of 40% per annum. The plaintiff consequently has claimed a sum of Rs.85,00,000 (Rupees eight million five hundred thousands only) for his sufferings on account of such injuries and Rs.35,00,000 (Rupees three million five hundred thousands only) on account of prospective loss of income. In addition, the plaintiff has claimed special damages of Rs.35,000 spent on medical as well as surgical treatment and Rs.1,15,000 expected to be spent 011 further treatment. The plaintiff has also claimed under this head a sum of Rs.30,000 spent on transportation and a further sum of Rs.500,000 on account of prospective transportation expenses as per plaintiff he is not in a position to use public transport after loosing one hand.
27. Taking up the claim of general damages, the plaintiff has not examined any doctor in support of his claim and has himself produced certain prescription, patient discharge card and two photographs. The production of these documents though was not challenged on the ground of admissibility, however, an objection was raised for the non production of originals at the time of cross examination which as evident from the record stands complied with. However, Mr. Raghib Baqi while challenging the production of such documents on the ground of admissibility contended that even if such documents are brought on record and exhibited without objection yet they cannot be treated as part of evidence, learned counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on the case Khan Muhammad Yousuf Khan Khattak .v. S.M. Ayub and 2 others (PLD 1973 SC 160), wherein the Honourable Supreme Court reiterated the principle laid down in the case of M/s. Bengal Friends and Co. v. Gour Benade Saha and Co., (PLD 1969 SC 477) to the following effect:- "Documents which are not copies of judicial record, should not be received in evidence without proof of signatures and handwriting of persons alleged to have signed or written them."
28. ' However, Mr. Raghib was not able to satisfy as to how the principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Bengal Friends and Co., (supra) would help the defendants in the circumstances of the present case for the simple reason that even if the documentary evidence is discarded still the plaintiff in para.7 of his affidavit-in-evidence has given the detail of the surgeries undergone which were never disputed. Besides the plaintiff has produced two photographs i.e.,, Exh.P/9 of offending RMU and Exh. P/10 of the plaintiff with an amputated hand, these two exhibits were not challenged by the defendant nor the dicta laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Bengal Friends and Co., (supra) is attracted to these two exhibits. Even the defendants have not disputed the amputation of the plaintiff's, hand in consequence to such electrocution which facts stand proved and of course the consequent sufferings resulting therefrom.
29. ' As to the second injury, neither the documentary evidence produced reflect that the injury suffered by the 'plaintiff on the base of urethra has caused impotency to the plaintiff nor the plaintiff has produced any expect on the point that on account of such injury the plaintiff has lost his manhood the bald statement of the plaintiff's father to the effect that the plaintiff has lost his manhood cannot be accepted. Keeping in view the age of the plaintiffs i.e., only seven years. I am, therefore of the view that without the evidence of any expert on record, it would be too early to adjudge the plaintiff impotent, therefore, I do not find plaintiff entitled to non pecuniary losses claimed on account of impotency, though he is found entitled to the compensation for the suffering caused by the injury on the base of urethra. Further there is no documentary or oral evidence of the expert on the plaint that such injuries have shorten the life span of the plaintiff, consequently the losses claimed on such count are also rejected.
30. In my opinion the general damages I as claimed by the plaintiff are the natural consequences of loosing right hand from mid arm level and it goes without saying that the plaintiff would never be able to enjoy life as he would have without the loss of his hand for which he is to be compensated in order to mitigate his suffering and pain. The plaintiff is further entitled to compensation on account of his suffering due to the injury on the base of his urethra. However I am of the view that I the non-pecuniary compensation claimed by the plaintiff to the extent of Rs.8500000 for such suffering is not only exaggerated nonrealistic but fanciful. Taking into account the age, nature of injuries resulting pain its duration and its over all effect on plaintiff's life, I am of the view that compensation in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 (Rupees five hundred thousands only) would be fair.
31. Coming to the claim of pecuniary losses on account of loss of prospective income there is no evidence on record except the bald statement' of the plaintiff's father that he was taking training of auto mechanic or was getting Rs.15 to Rs.20 per day. This portion of evidence further does not inspire confidence for the reason that the plaintiff has stated in his affidavit-inevidence that on 4- 6-1997 i.e., Wednesday a working day the plaintiff at about 2 p.m. Was going to purchase vegetable instead of working with the said auto mechanic. The plaintiff has in fact exaggerated his claim on account of a formula which is far from reality and based on wishful thinking oblivious of the fact that the plaintiff is to be adjudged in accordance with the status of his father and in the similar circumstances his father as deposed was not able to meet the needs of the day. In my view for this reason the Court while granting pecuniary compensation has to take into account the quality of life to which the plaintiff is accustomed, standard of living, and over all effect of such injuries on his life etc. It is also to be kept in mind that the loss' of one hand of course would affect the earning capacity of the plaintiff but would not totally deprive him from earning. Taking into account all such factors I am of the view that a sum of Rs.1,000,000 (Rupees One Million only) shall be sufficient on such count.
32. Coming to the special damages, the plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs.35,000 as amount spent on treatment and further sum of Rs.1,50,000 as prospective medical expenses, however such claim of the plaintiff is not supported by any documentary evidence to show that any amount was actually spent on his treatment. Even otherwise, the documentary evidence produced reflects that the plaintiff was treated in National Institute of Child. Health which normally extends free medical treatment, the very fact that the plaintiff has not produced any bill of treatment or receipts for medicine etc. Supports such view, notwithstanding it also cannot be expected that no amount whatsoever would have been spent by the plaintiff on his treatment. Mr. Nasir Maqsood has contended that though no documentary proof has been produced in support of special damages still the same can be awarded by this Court upon a fair estimate of expenses which might have been incurred by the plaintiff on purchasing medicine etc., conveyance and travelling expenses, and to support such plea learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Gyan Parkash Bhargava (11)
33. (1985 ACC 230) where a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court had under similar circumstances upheld the finding of the learned Single Judge who had allowed special damages without documentary evidence upon a fair estimate of medical, conveyance and travelling expenses.
34. Keeping in tiew the financial back ground of the plaintiff and the fact that he was treated in a hospital which extend free medical treatment upon a fair estimate of the medicines which the plaintiff would have purchased during his treatment allow a sum of Rs.20,000 on account of medical expenses, however the future medical expenses as claimed cannot be allowed as there is no evidence on record that the plaintiff needs further treatment.
35. The plaintiff has further Claimed a sum of Rs.30,000 as past and Rs.500,000 as prospective transportation charges, there is nothing on record to support such claim except the bald statement of plaintiffs father which also appears to be hypothetical and on the basis of a theory that a person who . Is deprived of one hand cannot undertake any journey by public transport.
36. Despite all my sympathies for the plaintiff I am not able to persuade myself to agree to such a theory. However the. Amount ready spend by the plaintiff on the transport' in the sum of Rs.30,000 is allowed for the reason that the period when the plaintiff was admitted in the hospital for the purposes of surgeries etc. The plaintiff must have incurred expenses on hiring of private transport etc. '
37. In the circumstances, I decree the suit in the sum of Rs. 1550,000 and direct the defendant to deposit the said amount with the Nazir of this Court within 30 days hereof which amount shall be invested in some profit bearing Government scheme and the plaintiff would be entitled to its profit till he attains majority. In case the defendant failed to deposit the said amount within 30 days hereof the plaintiff shall further be entitled to an equalizer at the rate of 10% from the date of decree till the said amount is deposited.