 compensation like we just Thank you very much because it's been a great honor to have known you over the last few days. My Lord Honorable Justice Piase Kuriapur's former Chief Justice One of the eminent participants today. My greetings to my Lord because he himself a thorough gentleman and a very learned figure which I could make out other eminent participants and I was told that most of the participants are practicing lawyers and even a few law students. Now this is of course my first association with I would say first venture with beyond law CLC. So I'll try and make it brief because you have to give time to a family you have to spend time with your family. So I will be brief. Now the topic is a very interesting topic. Why interesting and I would say that any law scholar any law student with a judge whether a lawyer, whether law student, whether a person who is into academics. This subject is very close. Why close? Because when we join law, this is one of the first few subjects which we take. And as far as I know when we hear about thoughts for the first time, it feels weird because we are used to IPC, we are used to CRPC and all. We are also used to all those transfer of property act and all but thoughts when it comes to us. What is the subject about? So this very fact speaks for itself. Thoughts was not our creation. It originated from the West from England to be particular. You all know that in English common law, your English courts started a lot of this. They talked about thoughts and principles of thoughts that we have been applying today. In the Indian context, it has its origin from the English common law and the English courts. Over the period of years, we have adopted it, not only adopted it, we have administered it. Keeping in view the peculiarities of our country. Of course, we have not copied thoughts from there. We have seen the context, our own requirements. What do we need for our population? We have made sure that the law of thoughts is utilized to its fullest in the Indian context. The topic assigned to me is a very interesting topic. Actually, it is a very vast topic, but since the time constraint is always there, you are all very busy people. We have to attempt a few puzas as well. Me personally, I have to go to another state after this. At around 6.30, I will be moving from here. You know, negligence in compensation in thoughts. I have given my best in preparing for it. I have prepared some papers. After I am done, I will be sharing it with Vikasri and I am sure you will forward it to all the learning participants through email or through WhatsApp and all. I cannot straight away jump to negligence or compensation in thoughts. I will just like to point out that it is also based on the magazine. You know a magazine, which means there is no wrong without a remedy. Where there is wrong, you should have a remedy. What does it mean? In the environment, there is no wrong without a remedy. But there is negligence in your apparently, or is it not? Now, I was going through a few judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court and as you all know, I have adopted the principle of thoughts from the English courts and the English common law. And particularly with the advent of the Britishers, I would say every ancillary right, not only ancillary right, even some of the fundamental rights are touched by this particular principle or doctrine of thoughts. So, in a judgment, you can quickly, if you want, then you can note it. Later, it will be in our write-up as well. Rajkot Municipal Corporation versus Manjul Bain Jayantilal Nakum. It has a citation. If you note it, it is from a law student. In 1997, 9 SCC 552. Specifically, the Honourable Supreme Court has made it clear that yes, we have expressly accepted the common law principle of thoughts as evolved in England. So, in a way, what I was saying, what Vikas ji has also briefly said, our Honourable Supreme Court has made it clear in this particular judgment that yes, we do not have thoughts. We have borrowed its principles from your English. Or, in fact, when you look at the CPC, sir, CPC itself, if you go to Section 9, it says that by any civil court, unless the jurisdiction of a civil court is not specifically barred, expressly barred, I wouldn't say impliedly, but expressly or in some cases, impliedly also, but then the court has jurisdiction over all civil matters. So, here you will also see a little semblance of application of thoughts law, where compensation is discussed, where your damages are discussed, pursuant to some negligence. There has been some negligence, some negligence standards also I will be discussing. But you have to remember once, dear participants, now every right, every violation, every wrong does not give birth to a right. For example, let me start with an example of a coincidence. You started a movie hall, you are a competitor, they also started a movie hall. No, you cannot say that because of their business, my business has become tough. So, I am entitled to compensation for the loss of business that I have, loss of profits that I have suffered. You have to remember this, you have achieved something, you have achieved something because of its rival business, but this doesn't give you the right to seek compensation from him or seek damages from him. For example, I have given you this example, and this is codified in the two well-known, I would say, magazines that is Injury Sign Demno and Demnum Sign Injury. If you have been injured, you are entitled to damages, but you have been damaged but no corresponding right has been violated. There is no wrong, no legal wrong on the part of the defendant or the opposite party, then you are not entitled to any compensation. This is a simple example of the TOTS law, you remember, the law students can also note this. Like I said, we have borrowed the principle and law of TOTS from England. So, there are some judgments out there that you will be available in any of the TOTS books to you. For the first time, you should note that for the first time, TOTS as a terminology and in the application of law, for the first time it was used and used in 1597. There was a case, your Bolton versus Hardy, you can say it anywhere on the internet. If you have subscribed to STC or even Manupatra or even Google, you have given some excerpts about this case. So far as recorded history of TOT laws goes, in this particular case, the use of the word TOTS was used for the first time. This is the case of the 16th century, as I told you in 1597. And by the way, you know, some of our Britishers, there are some cases in their country, like Blythe versus Birmingham Water Works. You must have heard that there was a judge in this case, Eldersen. He grew up in this case, he told me about the relationship between negligence and TOTS. And after that, I will be discussing some case laws, both Indian and foreign case laws. Now coming to the topic that has been specifically assigned to me, like I said, negligence and compensation in the TOTS. First of all, before starting straight away in the topic, there are some terminologies that our learned participants note. Like negligence itself, whether criminal or civil negligence. Then there's something called strict liability. I will discuss you in that. After that, our own Supreme Court started strict liability. In your British High Court, there was a case, Rylance versus Fletcher, you know, any law student would know that. Our own Supreme Court also extended it this way. Now, not only strict liability, we also follow the principle of what they say, absolute liability. MC Mehta, you all have heard of MC Mehta Ji's name as a law student. His name comes again and again. He is an activist, a social activist, an environmentalist and he has done a lot of PLs. So, you have to understand that in a lot of decision thoughts, MC Mehta Ji's PL, he has done an article 32 in the Supreme Court. In this, a lot of judgments came into our onward Supreme Court TOTS and we should thank him as well as our onward Supreme Court for having developed the law of TOTS to such an extent that wherever you go, people, TOTS or liability, be it in motor vehicles accidents case, be it in medical negligence case, our people have become so conscious that the same law developed through the onward Supreme Court is being used everywhere. You have to remember that. Now, there will be another topic after that, vicarious liability. As I said about medical negligence, if a doctor does negligence, of course I will discuss about the degree of negligence. If he makes a mistake, whether it is a civil negligence or whether it is a criminal negligence, we will also discuss that. Then, I have mentioned the topic of vicarious liability as well. Note that in that as well. A driver or a car dashes you and goes away. Or you are travelling in a car and it meets with an accident. Now, there is something called vicarious liability of the owner of the vehicle for the rational negligence driving of the driver, which is compensated by the insurance company. Because you are a victim in the category of third party. I will tell you about that in detail. And let me tell you, I won't take more than one hour because I know you all are very busy today. Now, coming back to negligence. From where we started. In simple language, which I pointed out to you in the case of Blight versus Birmingham Water Works. Elders and judges are not involved in this. I will quote them and then we will discuss further. I quote sir, their participants. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs. Unquote. It is very simple. It is called in Sanskrit or it is done directly in Hindi. You have a duty to care. As a reasonable human, what is expected from you? From you as a normal human being, a person under normal circumstances. Can you be expected from them? That would be the standard. We are trying and demanding a lot from someone or we are imputing. You are guilty of negligence. There has to be a reasonable analysis of whether his actor omission falls within the era of negligence. And a very famous case, Donahue versus Stevenson. You know House of Lords, which is in Britain. There has been further increase in negligence and they have also established the general principle of the duty to care. When I say duty to care, this particular terminology or this particular sentence, it speaks volumes. When I say duty to care, the meaning of this becomes very big. Duty to care in the sense, we are driving our own vehicle. We are driving a new vehicle. We are driving a bigger vehicle. We are driving the speed. We have killed someone. That is fine. They wanted to cross the road. There would be a mistake. We will see that later when I talk about contributory negligence. Secondly, either I am driving two vehicles. Vikas Ji is also driving a vehicle from there. He is thinking that I will allow him to pass and I am thinking that he will allow me to pass. And there is a head on college. So the passengers in our vehicles, towards them our duty to care. We will discuss all this. So negligence comes only when we had a, I will just quote this. A duty of care owed to the plaintiff by the defendant. The plaintiff here, the victim who is an aglimate party or defendant who is ROP or who has a friend. Look, this is a criminal and a civil wear. So I am a defendant and your respondent says interchangeably I will use these words. Now we should always bear in mind that the elements of negligence have been firstly, a duty of care owed to the plaintiff by the defendant. Which I have told you as an example. Secondly, a breach of that duty by the defendant. Our duty is to care for those who are in our vehicle. We are driving a race and they are feeling hurt. That is a breach of duty on our part. For example, you are travelling by air or by railway or even by some road transport. You are travelling by bus. The driver has been in the bus for many years now. But I remember when we used to be students, the driver would talk to a passenger or a car driver or a cleaner. So in many cases you have seen that there is a breach of duty on the part. There is rashness and negligence. I would say gross negligence on the part or gross rashness on the part. Secondly, the sufferance of loss by the plaintiff pursuant to the breach of the duty by the defendant. You have to be punished. You have a cause of action. You are civil experts and there are many lawyers. There is a cause of action. It is not that they have driven the speed and I have no idea. It has to be something quantifiable and objective. Something which can be assessed objectively. The injury has to be should be of such a nature which can be assessed objectively. It should not be subjective. It was the time of my veneration. They sent me home late. They stopped me in the car at 10 o'clock. It has to be something concrete or something which can be objectively analyzed. Then when I was telling you about strict liability, there was negligence. I will come to it later. I will also talk about IPC. Section 304A. You are already experts. The strict liability which I talked about, you have seen it in many judgments. You have heard it and read it. The Supreme Court has applied this principle. As I said, in 1987, MC Mehta vs. Union of India has stretched it. Not only strict liability, in some cases there will also be absolute liability and declared it in the Honourable Supreme Court. And remember this. After that, I will tell you some other topics in Chutkari so that I come to the main topics. A few case laws also. Like I said, for an academic purpose, if anybody would like to go through it, Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, I repeat, Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, 2008, Volume 9, SCC 527, the Honourable Supreme Court has elaborately discussed the case of Raelians vs. Fletchers. And in this, they have discussed many things. They have also distinguished some points. Then, no false liability. I spoke about strict liability. I spoke about the extension of that and the expounding of the principle of absolute liability by our Honourable Supreme Court. Then there is something called no-fault liability. I give you a simple example of what our motor vehicles act like. You all are aware of this. A few amendments recently came up, but some of the amendments have not been notified. If you go to section 163A, you will see that without proof of any negligence, without proof of any rationales, somebody got injured, whether it is a permanent partial disabilment, whether it is a permanent disabilment, whether it is a case of death. In some cases, under section 163, you get a certain amount of compensation straight away. It used to be very little. Now, I believe it is 5 lakhs also because nowadays, many people are not filing in section 163A and they prefer to file in section 166 because the compensation amount is much higher in that. So, a simple example of no-fault liability is section 163A Motor Vehicles Act. And to my knowledge, some amendments have come to the Motor Vehicles Act, but the amendment replacing this particular section fortunately, I would say, has not yet been implemented. But this is subject to correction. You will have to check from your side since I am talking to experts. I have no hesitation in saying this. After that, as I said, MC Meta's case, extension of Fletcher, so, Ryland versus Fletcher, some of the judgments I was giving, as you all know, in our country, such a beautiful, such a big country of ours with such a robust democracy and people are seeking, we ourselves have come into democracy. And along with that, we chose to be the 22nd state of this great nation called India, Bharat. Now, in a country like ours, Article 31 and all of our constitution, a state has to act as a welfare state. It is not a police state. It is not a mere executive, mere state which is executing its wins and fancies. It's a welfare state. So, when we talk about welfare state, with our constitution in the backdrop and many judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court as well as different Honourable High Courts, state, even though some of the acts of the state were performed in its power of eminent domain, still it would be liable so far as compensating the agri-parties are concerned. So, the state in our country, the state, whether it be the Union of India or the state governments, they are not immune to liabilities under the tort law, be it for compensation, you can see it, the municipal corporation has a lot of liabilities, road and business departments have liabilities, flyovers are falling, people are sustained injuries and many of them even succumb to the injuries. So, in our country, under tort, we can even sue the state. We cannot sue the state government or Union of India. For example, railways, you can see the cases of railways, so many cases of railways under the railways act, be it for compensation, be it for other so many things, even in Mumbai, you read about local trains, so many people suffering because of rashness or negligence on the part of those local trains. So, we have to remember this, but the same is not the case in the US. You see, the greatness of our country is known by this. In the US, you see, there are some cases, let me tell you briefly. If there is an accident of a state, if the federal government or even the states, the state governments over there, if something happens to them, be it military action or some other executive action, if they prove that, look, some culpable negligence was not there on our part, then in that case, they are immune. That is not the case with private enterprises. You must have seen it, we see it in movies too. In the news, in our legal articles, in this, you must have noted class action, against a cigarette company, class action, against a medicine company, class action. There is a lot of damage. These are private drug companies. For example, sir, talking in the COVID context, you see, all these COVID vaccines companies, mostly COVID shield and 2-3 companies, they have already signed a waiver cross, that we should be made immune from so and so actions, class actions. There is a waiver cross and governments also. For example, these many Latin American countries, some of the European countries, with private drug companies, they have signed an MOU or agreement, they have signed a waiver cross, an immunity cross, so that later on, these drug companies, because of side effects, or because of some problems, there are no cases on them. And these cases, mind you dear participants, are humongous. They run into millions and billions of dollars. So that is why these private companies, not only that they are immune, but they are also clever enough to ensure that they have some kind of immunity. But that is not the case with, not the case in every other business. COVID is fine, vaccination is fine, but I was seeing in the US, you can note it, law students, in LAD versus NAMS, it's a case of 1971, and the other one was before, it was a case of 1952, it had some military actions of the state. The US government was held not to be liable because no cultable negligence was proved on its part. It was not established. But like I said, people, agree people, they filed compensation against the state government, against the union of India. If compensation comes down from here, then we also file a case. And that is the beauty of our country. After that, I was seeing in France, I thought of telling you in one line, even in France, your strict liability, they follow that principle, then I talked about negligence and our duty to care, how few foreign judgments and our Indian judgments have been developing the law regarding it. Now, a few months ago, I started contributing negligence. For example, in Udaarun Swarup, I will tell you, there is a car speed, there is a taxi vehicle, it's going in a certain speed. Now, speed as you all know, everybody is expert here, is a relative term. Express highway, the same speed limit would not be rest driving. But in these areas, I live in the mountains, the same speed here, and then you can get a carway. So it's a relative term that you all are aware of. Now, contributing negligence, why contributing negligence matters? Now, where there is a criminal liability, we are driving ahead, you couldn't avoid hitting him. Now, under the criminal law, of course, the driver is liable under rest driving, which is your Fourier at times. But if he's able to prove, or if his passengers are able to prove, that by mistake, it didn't happen. The mistake that the victim came suddenly, he even gave a horn. In fact, the traffic light was green, and there was contributing negligence on his part. So how can you criminally do that? So the driver or the person who is on the wheels, who is driving, he would be absolved or exonerated of the liability. But the victim got some damage. He has suffered. Maybe his family has also suffered. And if it is a case where he succumbs to his injury, the situation is even worse. Maybe he's the only earning member of his family. In such situations, you can see, in our motor vehicles act, we were codified to a great extent. If you bring it in, then let's go into contributing negligence. Okay. If they have contributed negligence from here, then the compensation that they get, certain deductions will be made. But the bottom line is, he or his family should have some, get some compensation. This is the long and short of it. And there is a good case, which you can note if you want, this is contributing negligence. It is also, I remember seeing it on the screen, it's based on the doctrine of identification or the principle of imputation. For our law students, it is based on the doctrine of identification and principle of imputation. By under what law? How do we come here? Because we would also be doing some cases in which it would be very difficult for the lawyers or the parties to apply some law. So in this, mostly we apply some doctrine, some principle, some legal maximum. So even contributing negligence has its origin. In these two doctrines, which I repeat, they are participants, doctrine of identification and principle of imputation. It is well believed that Supreme Court has discussed in a case, please note down their students and other participants. Union of India versus United India Insurance Company Limited 1997, Volume 8, SCC 683. I repeat, dear participants, Union of India versus United India Insurance Company Limited and others, 1997, Volume 8, SCC 683. This is the contributing negligence. Second, I will digress a bit. It's been quite some time since I have talked in Hindi. I am a product of Kendrae Vidyalay. But after a long time and I have not written in Hindi since a long time. And while speaking also, it is either the local language here or mostly in quotes method, the language of quote here is in English. So Hindi may put words over if I tend to misspeak or if there are some words here, please don't take it too seriously. Anyway, now we have talked about contributing negligence. There is another concept called composite negligence. If you remember, when I gave you an example, a few days ago, in two cars, because they are coming from ahead, I am going from here, in both cars, head and collision. Now in this, those who are hurt, they can seek compensation from both of us. We are both drivers. If there is negligence of both, then we call joint tort fissures. Joint tort fissures or both are liable. We are jointly and severely liable. You always note, mostly law students and young advocates note, whether it be the liability of joint tort fissures, whether it be the liability of a person who is obtained loan from the bank any surety or guarantor, or someone who is acted in a group, a company, the directors of a company, if something is wrong with the company, something is wrong with someone, they will always talk about joint and severely liable. This means, you are also liable. And you are liable from these violent ways. This means, composite negligence. In this, quickly, you note the case, Kenyai versus New India Assurance Company Limited 2015, Volume 9, SCC 273. I repeat, Kenyai, K-H-E-N-Y-E-I versus New India Assurance Company Limited 2015, Volume 9, SCC 273. Read this, for those people who are interested in going through it. You can read this. It's a very, look, when we read the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court, wise people, they always then, all the Honourable Constitutional Courts beat the High Court or our Honourable Summit Court. When we read their judgments, one way, your concept is clear, your thinking is broadened, your understanding becomes deeper. So please make it a point, dear participants, especially the law students and other law scholars, in as many cases, I have referred to and which because you can always contact because the you need not go into deep and all, but a cursory reading, you give it. I'll see you in time. Don't worry, I'll try and be with you in my time. Then, I'll try and be with you in my time. Then, I was talking about medical negligence. Before medical negligence, I'll tell you a little about medical insurance because medical negligence is a bit of a vast topic. Medical insurance, you all know, all the participants here with their vast experience, so many cases, so many years you have put in practice, law students also have read so many books. Till date, you have seen very little, that when something becomes an accident, someone's death or injuries, then the insurance company comes and gives money or compensates, this is very little. Unless you are a person building some power, unless you are a person building some influence, with all due respect to the insurance companies, it is seldom that they come to you, your footstep, your door and say that this is your compensation it is very rare, I would say. So, when it comes to medical insurance, please note, if you are recommending someone, whatever medical forms you are filling, please ensure that all, and in some cases, what do you call medical insurance company? No, no, you give, when insurance, they will talk quickly only when they have to obtain a policy from you. You all know that. So, what do they do in a hurry? No, no, medical document is not required. Yes, do it there. No, do it there and give your signature. So, we gave it. Now, we are like some law people, we read it, but the common people, when we have so many problems, what about the common people? Medical, when you are giving declarations, please ensure that you are client and your personal view, all facts or medical details or medical history is indicated. Please make sure of that. Now, coming to medical negligence, very, sentence as going through, I'll just read it out. I cannot help, but I have to say it, legal history is replete with attempts to regulate this doctor-patient relationship by providing for sanctions for earning doctors. This is going on for many years. Before 1995, Dr. Suresh's judgment, I'll give you the citation now. After that, Mr. Jacob Matthew's judgment, some high courts' judgment, and you note, whenever this comes to medical negligence, mostly cases, even from our National Commission, very good judgments, very authoritative decisions, which have been appealed by the Honourable Supreme Court also, these decisions have come into our medical negligence. So, in this, our doctors, I know they are doing God's job and in COVID, no one has sacrificed more than our doctors. I salute them, but at the same time, some, in every profession, in our own profession maybe, or in medical profession maybe, you see that whether with bad intention, or unknowingly, something or the other, is left somewhere. So, first of all, for medical practitioners, who remember our law students, a medical practitioner or doctor has the following duties. Duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, duty of care in administration of that treatment, a breach of any of these duties gives the patient the right of action for negligence. Or, most importantly, there has to be good faith, and bona fideas, or bona fideas, in what you do. When you, doctors, your actions are lacking in good faith or lacking in bona fideas, then, then, they will have it. They have to be careful, not that, there is a place called Siligudi, many of our cases, come there, that, for something else, for something else, they have come there, and now, medical problems, complications are coming. So, like, in the removal appendix, after 15 years, after you know, some of these, what do you call them, some veins, some of them are sticking to you, some of these cases also happen. So, just remember this, and there is a judgment, there are two judgments, which I will tell you now. Firstly, before I come to those judgments, negligence, medical negligence on the part of the medical practitioners. See, I told you in the beginning, civil negligence, criminal negligence. If, consider that no medical practitioner or doctor, what do you call them, they have done negligence, they have done gross negligence, rectilation, some of these cases, some of these judgments, if time permits, I will discuss that. They have left a stain on the stomach, they have done something, what do you call them, they have done sterilization, operation, but then their pregnancy is taking place, children are being born, they have left a stain on the stomach, there was something else on the stomach, it was here, it was here, there are many such cases. So, just remember, if the negligence is of aggravated kind, I will just read it out for myself. If the negligence is from, is of, is of an aggravated kind, then it might fall within the purview of criminal negligence. But, mere lack of care, for example, by scratches there, doctors had used some scalpel, some of those, so in some cases, it might only end up as a civil negligence. This you have to remember, and two judgments, please note down there, participants, Dr. Suresh Gupta versus government of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2004, SC 4091, I repeat, Dr. Suresh Gupta versus government of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2004, SC 4091, or, another judgment is interesting, please read it out, Jacob Matthew versus state of Punjab, AIR 2005, SC 3180, I repeat, Jacob Matthew versus state of Punjab, AIR 2005, SC 3180. Now, what happens, the participants is, some of these judgments, some observations would be modified in the letter, judgments of the honorable Supreme Court. So please make sure that when you read these judgments, you are also aware of whether the observations or whether the ratio was declared or whether it was declared by the obit, you have to be very conscious of this fact, you have to take more of that. Then, we see of course, if there has been a medical negligence on the part of the doctor, the medical practitioner, what some people do, only the hospital is made a party, the doctor is not made a party. But, like I said, vicarious liability of the hospital, so both doctors in the hospital, they both have to be made parties or there is a judgment, there is a National Commission, I note down, Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Center versus Krishnam Bihari M. Agarwal 2003, Volume 4, CPJ61, NC. I repeat, dear participants, Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Center versus Krishnam Bihari M. Agarwal 2003, Volume 4, CPJ61, Within Breckers, NC National Commission. You have to remember this. Dear participants, in some of the cases, you can see, there was an accident, no one saw it. Whoever got hurt, he died. Those who were in the car, all of them succumbed to their injuries. There are two children and they are not able to speak. They are not able to identify the driver. So, in all these situations, sometimes there are some problems, some of our angry persons, the victims, they are normally not able to secure that compensation from the courts. For this, a principle which our courts have evolved, you have also heard, Res Ipsa Locator. It is a Latin term for the things speak for themselves. For example, in a plane road, you are driving a car on the side, you have killed someone on the pedestrian side, who is walking on your roadside. So, by the very fact that instead of going to the car, you had to go here and you had killed here, by the very fact that there is no witness now, but by the very fact that this particular incident occurred and the manner in which it occurred, the things speak for themselves, the situation itself would lead to a reasonable inference that it is your fault, it is your negligence, it is your rashness. So, in this concept, you should understand and just be careful that many of our courts, our lawyers, our law students sometimes submit a research paper, so, they put this principle of the principle of the RACIPSA Locator. Please be mindful of the fact that this particular principle is again subject to certain limitations. It is not that there is no material and you are putting the RACIPSA Locator and you are finding any person in which there is genuinely no fault, it is also being brought to you under the RACIPSA Locator. You should not make this mistake. This is a good honourable Supreme Court as back as in 1965. We have caused this and the judgment, of course, I will read it first, a two-ready reliance on the magazine reinforces a fault liability and makes it into an absolute liability even in cases where it is not otherwise applicable. Please be very and mindful of this fact. The judgment, please note down participants, State of Punjab, Appelian versus Messages, Modern or Cultivators, AIR 1965 SC 17, Page 17, I repeat, Justice Mudolkar, you all know Justice Mudolkar, the Justice who I wouldn't say expounded, but the Justice, the Justice of Peace who propounded the basic concept of basic structure in our Constitution. Justice Mudolkar three judgments is one of the judges and of course, basic feature to Dietary Conrad, there was a professor you all know, but just so that I don't digress, I'll just keep it here. The judgment, I'll repeat it again, participants, State of Punjab, Appelian versus Messages, Modern or Modern, M-O-B-E-R-N-A, Cultivators, AIR 1965, SC, Page number 17. You read this, there shouldn't be over emphasis on the principle of, on the magazine, Recipes are locator. After that, there are some concepts, Melphizans, misphizans, non-phizans. I did not discuss this because very term itself, their grammatical, or their meanings, they would make it clear. I will not go into this. Now, coming to, for a long time, you have noted that I was talking about motor vehicle. Because as much as you see in the compensation case, 95% at least in my state, and I am so bigger states and bigger figures, in my state, 95% of compensation cases would be under the Motor Vehicles Act. Or, Mananaya Supreme Court, Mananaya High Courts, all over the country, the constitutional courts have, time and again, this is how it has been expanded, the law of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, that, it has ensured that by a, any person, shouldn't suffer because of somebody else, or because of somebody else's fault. Someone else's accident has happened so nobody should suffer because of that. In this, in Motor Vehicles, of course, I need not discuss much. Just note, there are some judgments where, the main case of the Computation of Income is National Institutes Company Limited versus Pranay City. It is known as Pranay City and after this, some judgments were relied on, discussed by subsequent judgments, but Pranay City, which is five judgments, this is authoritative and you all know, it would be binding. Even if there are three judgments, if they are different, they are different, this will be binding on that. Its citation is 2017, Volume 16, STC 680. I repeat, National Institutes Company Limited versus Pranay City, 2017, Volume 16, STC 680. The reason why I have discussed this case is, earlier we used to, we as Tribunals, Motto Action Claims Tribunals, you as advocates, the Honorable Icon Judges who have been attending this program, we had this problem of Computation. What is there? What is the Maaptan? What is the Maaptan, what is the Maaptan? What are the judgments being said? What are the judgments being said? What are the judgments being said? What are the judgments being said? So by discussing all of these, Justice Deepak Mishra, the brilliant that he was, the author of the book, he has discussed everything and now Pranay Setti is an authoritative judgement on this particular point. Then in the case of injuries, Pranay Setti would be applicable. In every case, Pranay Setti is not applicable. There is a permanent partial disablement, there is permanent disablement. So for this, you have to make a judgement. Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, he has discussed this a lot. After this, there is a judgement of 2011. 2011, Volume 1, SCC 343. I repeat, dear participants, Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar. 2011, Volume 1, SCC 343. Now, this is a determination of heads under which you can compute the compensation and damages in cases of injuries. Serious cases, your routine injury cases, all of these have been discussed. Please go through it. They are different by pecuniary damages, general damages, non-pecuniary damages. Mental harassment, mental trauma. Your loss of amenities. Which head will come in? Medical expenses and bill actually incurred. Which head will come in? All of these have been discussed. And many judgements of the old Supreme Court and different high courts have relied on this particular judgement. You have to remember this. And I am now about to conclude. So please bear with me. In the 10th of June 2020, the judgement of Manini Supreme Court came. Please note it down. Sri Anthony Elias, Anthony Swami versus the managing director, KSRTC. It should be full formed. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. But the acronym is KSRTC. I repeat, they are participants. Sri Anthony Elias, Anthony Swami versus the managing director, KSRTC. This is judgement dated 10th of June 2020 in civil appeal number 251 of 2020. Now, why did I point this judgement? Earlier you used to see disability certificate has come. You have only 20% disability. Like us tribunals, they sometimes get less compensation. In some cases, 60% disability by a duly constituted medical board. You have only 60%. So you cannot claim 80%. In this particular judgement, the Supreme Court has made it clear. It is not only that figure which is there in the disability certificate. You also have to apply your mind towards actual physical functional disability. For example, a driver got injured in his hand. The elbow got injured in his wrist. For him, compared to the body, that might only be 25%. But given his functional disability, that would amount to again 62-80%. I would say even 90%. So this is the differentiation. Thanks to the Honourable Supreme Court, we are facing problems in so many such cases. Now, this situation is not there. Now, few specific cases of medical negligence. You all know wrong blood transfusion. There are some judgements. From the National Commission. For example, Calcutta Medical Research Institute versus Bimless Charter. I will forward it to you. Then Childbirth. Like I said, there are some judgements. There are some judgements of the Rajasthan High Court. And there are some justifications for the courts. The exception is not that there are justifications in every case. There are some exceptions or justifications. For example, Acts of States, Judicial Acts. The court did not give any judgements. Then the judge is pointing out. They rejected the bail. They had some problems in custody. The judge would not be made liable. Because he is performing his judicial functions. Then parental and quasi-parential authority. The parents who sometimes do it to discipline the children. But they should not exit it. Then authorities of necessity. If someone is going to ship, the captain has to take some decisions. Which may not be conducive for everyone. Then statutory authorities have some judgements. When there is a matter of eviction. There is a pregnant lady. They might not stay back. They will say, you remove them. We will send lady constables. These are the cases. Then inevitable accidents. Exercise of common rights. 4 people are doing something. And there are some problems in that. Then a very well-known magazine. Voluntary non-fit insurance. If you are taking something from your own will. For example, I will give you examples. There is a lady. She has done her facial plastic surgery. Later she passed away. She has already signed the declaration. I am going under the nine. With my full consent and after knowing very well. That if it goes wrong then I may have to suffer. In such cases. Then necessity. Private defense. I need not discuss. Then X was a slight. You have pushed me. You have put the case. All these are exceptions to the law of thoughts. And because I have come to the end. Like I said, I have kept it within my time. And thank you very much all participants. Because for giving me such an opportunity. To set my mind. To discuss. Such an important topic. With such. Eredite participants. And because with this. Once again. Wishing the Sarah to all their participants. My Lord justice career close. Also. I would conclude. And I would pass on the platform to you. Because he thank you sir. Thank you everybody. It was a session. And I expect that since we have taken in Hindi. But we can. Expect the strength from the. What views have been gathered on the YouTube. From that it is expected that it is also being well received. And being a second. Only a fourth session as such in Hindi. And to cover. The law of thoughts in such a wide spectrum. And to cover. The law of thoughts in such a wide spectrum. And to cover. The law of thoughts in such a wide spectrum. And that too in a short span only shows. And reflection knowledge. I'll ask justice bias. Share his views. Unmute himself. Unmute yourself sir. Yes sir because you know. Prejuvenal is a wonderful. Academician I know that you know. He was the first director of. Sikkim judicial academy. In fact when I founded the academy. I chose him. Who was then a relatively junior district. To be the first director. And my choice was very right. But then what I have to suggest is. When very landed faculty like. Prejuvenal comes. Just to permit him to. Contact classes in. Parts as you as you permitted me. Was estable. You allowed me to conduct it in two parts. So you know. Lot of ideas. Lot of information he has to convey. For positive time. He is constrained to shorten it. And who suffers. The participants suffer. All of us suffer. You should allow him. You should you should ask him. You can take your own time. But then. That is one program will be only one hour. So if you are not able to complete it. Let us have part two. In that way you should. But in the case of. Any other faculty. Who wants to. Take classes for more than one hour. You should. Let them go in their own way. Because especially. I know that. I have been. I was in fact wondering. How he is. How he could be so precise. How he is condensing everything. Okay. Very well as usual. Thank you. Coming on this particular platform. Because he is. Has also become one of my friends now. Obligeing because means. Obligeing me. Okay. We are obliged. And sir. As they say in Hindi. So we expect. We will continue to share his knowledge. Just like we will be taking your sessions. And as they say. One is alone two is a company. And three is a tango. So we will all continue to. Exchange the knowledge on this platform. Thank you everyone. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.