Judgment

- On June 23, 1961, a bus owned by the appellant which was going from Gwalior to Indore met with an accident as a result of which two of the passengers Mrs. Usha Kotasthane aged about 23 years, and her one year old son, died and several others received serious injuries. Among the injured was one Sailesh Kumar a boy of about four years. Claims for compenations were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Gwalior. The application for compensation for the death of Ms. Usha Kotasthena and her child was made by her husband "Shri Sudhakar Kotasthane, and the claim in respect of the injury to minor Sailesh Kumar was made on his behalf by his guardian mother Shrimati Indubala Bhandari, Sudhakar Kotasthane and Indubala Bhandari were also travelling in the same bus and both sustained injuries and were awarded compensation by the tribunal, but these appeals do not concern their cases or the claim in respect of Kotastharnes dead child. The two appeals before us at the instance of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, on certificate granted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, are against the common judgment of the High Court enhancing the quantum of damages awarded by the claims tribunal in respect of the death of Mrs. Usha Kotesthane and the injury sustained by Sailesh Kumar, C. A. 2254 of 1968 relates to the award in Mrs. Kotasthanes case and C. A. 2255 of 1968 to that in the case of Sailesh Kumar.

2. As regards the death of Mrs. Usha Kotasthane, the claim tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/- as damages to her husband Sudhakar. At the time of her death she was employed as Physical Instructress in a school at Indore, getting a salary of Rs. 190/- per month, in the grade of Rs. 150-10-250. Admittedly Sudhakar remarried within a year of the death of his first wife. This is how the tribunal death with the claim;

"In the present case, it is a case of the death of the wife. The husband was not dependent on the earning of his wife. He was himself earning independently. The applicant has nowhere stated that on account of the death of his former wife, he has been deprived of her income, nor that he was dependent upon her. It is true, that the wife of the applicant was educated, healthy, employed, and earning. As far as, the loss of companionship is concerned, it is again true that he faced this loss for nearly 11 months, after which, he married for the second time. No cross-examination has been led by the non-applicant on the point that the second wife is as accomplished, educated, and healthy as the former one was. The death of the wife of the applicant must have caused him mental shock, pain and inconvenience in his household. The work in the house, which he could take from his wife in looking to the household was also not available to the applicant during this period of 11 months. The advantages of established married life with a child in the lap, was also lost to the applicant during this time. Taking into consideration all these facts, in favour of the applicant, and the fact, against him that he was married again after 11 months, of the death of his wife, I think it will be proper to award damages amounting to Rs. 15,000/-, for the loss of life of his wife, which resulted into conditions of inconvenience, suffering shock derangement in house and the life, for a period of nearly 11 months."

Both Sudhakar Kotasthane and Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation preferred appeals to the High Court from the decision of the tribunal. The High Court proceeded as follows. The "span of her earning life" was counted as 35 years taking 58 years as the age of superannuation. For the first six years from the date of accident, the High Court took Rs. 300/- as the average monthly income, and for the remaining twenty-nine years of service the average income per month was fixed at Rs. 250/-. On this basis the High Court computed her total earnings to be Rs. 96,000/-. Giving allowance for her own expenses and also taking into acc