1988 Supreme(AP) 132

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.JAGANADHA RAO
A.Rajam - Appellant
Versus
M.Manikya Reddy - Respondent
C.M.A. No.1188/85
Decided On : 03-31-88
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. V. Rama Rao,Mr. P.V. Narayana Rao,Mr. K. Raghavachari

Headnote:MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - Sec. 110-D - Award of damages for death of a house wife aged 34 years and her minor children in a motor vehicles accident - Computation.

       Held : [1] The loss to the husband and children consequent upon the death of the house-wife or mother has to be computed by estimating the Joss of services to the family, if there was a reasonable prospect of such services being rendered freely in the future but for the death. Apart from the value of obtaining substituted services, the expense of giving accommodation or food to the substitute must also be computed. From this total must be deducted the expense the family would have otherwise been spending for the deceased house wife.

       [2] While estimating the services of the house-wife a narrow meaning should not be given to the meaning of the word services but should be construed broadly and one has to take into account the loss of the constant love and affection, as also of personal care and attention by the deceased of her children, as a mother and to her husband, as a wife. The award is not diminished merely because some close relation like a grand mother is prepared to render voluntary services. [3] In case the husband is compelled to give up his job to attend constantly on children who are extremely sickly, the loss of the husbands job can also be treated as loss to the family. If the deceased was contributing from her earnings to the family, that should also be treated as less. [4] If the wife was totally living away and there were no chances of reconciliation, the loss of services cannot be treated as a loss. But if there were reasonable chances of reconciliation, 50% of the loss of services could be awarded.

       [5] In the case of an injured house-wife, the award from the date of trial on the above basis of "loss of services" has to be made irrespective of whether she is in fact, going to empty substitute or not. Even for the period before trial, if she had not engaged a substitute, the award need not be diminished because the extra burden she had borne could be considered as part of the award for the "pain and suffering" and the said burden could be treated as equivalent to that of engaging a substitute.

       In the present case, the deceased was aged 34 years and she died in the accident on 12.4.81 along with her three male children aged 12, 8 and 6 years. The husband claimant who is the appellant before me, was aged 40 years at that time. The total claim, unfortunately, is only in a sum of Rs. 40,000/- for all the four deaths, the Tribunal awarding a Shockingly low sum of Rs.18,000/- for four deaths. The deceased house wife was not employed. Her special services to the family have then to be estimated as including the love and affection as also the personal care and attention she would have given, as a mother to her children any as a wife to her husband. But as in this case, the children are all dead, that special loss to the children need not be taken into account, especially when the compensation claim includes the claim due to loss of children in the same accident. The expense that would have been incurred on the wife, if living, has to be deducted. Taking the special loss to the family even at Rs. 150/- P.M., the annual loss will be atleast Rs. 1800/-.

       C.M.A. Allowed