JUDGMENT - Patel, J.

(1) These two appeals arise out of proceedings under the Fatal Accidents Act and are filed on behalf of the claimants. The accident which gave rise to this occurred on November, 18, 1959 between 4.50 and 5.00 P. M. opposite Sacred Heart Boys High School, Andheri, on the Ghodbunder Road. At this time, defendant No. 2 Lakir Ali was driving a truck belonging to defendant No. 1. Even though the traffic was stopped defendant No. 2 drove the truck and while overtaking a bus from the left without any warning knocked down two ladies, as a result of which they died. The names of the deceased are Hayatibai and Rukhanbai. Appeal No. 160 of 1962 arises out of proceedings commenced by Hayatibais husband Abdulkadar Ebrahim Sura and her mother Amanbai Mulla Esmailji Gleetwalla. Appeal No. 161 of 1962 arises out of proceedings commenced by the husband Abdulabhai and children of Rukyabai.

(2) In the first case, the applicants claimed a sum of Rs. 5, 860 in respect of medical expenses, funeral and obsequial expenses and other expenses. They also claimed Rs. 35,000 for the loss of expectation of life, loss to them and loss to the estate, alleging that the lady died due to the negligent act of defendant No. 2.

(3) In the other case, the claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 4, 417.50 p. on the first count and Rs. 35,000 on the other head, alleging negligence to defendant No. 2.

(4) Curiously enough, to this action the Insurance Company was made a party and was allowed to appear in the case. The defendants contested the proceedings, contending that defendant No. 2 was not negligent in driving the truck. They also contended that the damages claimed were excessive.

(5) The first case, the learned trial Judge assessed damages as follows:- Rupees 2,000 for pain and suffering to the deceased who lived for 19 days after the accident, a sum of Rs. 1,000 for loss of expectation of life and a sum of Rs. 2,650 on the first head of medical and other expenses. After assessing Rs. 2,000 as damages for pain and suffering to the deceased and Rs. 1,000 for loss of expectation of life, in Para 11, he reduced this amount to Rs. 2,800 as general damages. On this footing, he awarded Rs. 5,450 only in favour of applicant No. 1. He did not award the claim to funeral expenses and for obsequial ceremonies. He directed that the parties bear their own costs on the ground that the applicants had failed substantially. In the second case, as she died on the 4th day, the learned Judge assessed damages at Rs. 1,000 on the ground of pain and suffering of the deceased, Rupees 1,000 for loss of expectation of life, and Rs. 700 for medical and other expenses. After saying this, he fixed general damages and pain and suffering and shortened expectation of life at Rs. 1,850 on this basis, he awarded Rs. 4,100 as total damages in the second case.

(6) Mr. Shah has argued that the damages awarded are totally and wholly inadequate. We are not concerned in either of the cases with the question of damages under the first head i.e. for medical and other expenses incurred by the applicants for the deceased, as the learned Judge has awarded such damages as were proved before him by sufficient evidence. Mr. Shah has not pressed his contention in respect of the same.

(7) He, however, contends that the learned Judge erred in awarding only Rs. 2,000 for pain and suffering to the deceased Rs. 1,000 for shortened expectation of life and no amount towards pecuniary loss to the family. He also argued that the learned Judge ought to have allowed damages for loss of consortium. The last contention that he made was regarding the order of costs. Same contentions are raised in the second case.

(8) The present action is under the Fatal Accidents Act of 1855 which modified the common law and gave a right of action in a case of death caused by the torturous act of another. By Section 1 (sic),* it provides

"in every such action, the Court may give such damages as it may think proportionate to the loss re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document