THIPPANNA Vs. HANUMANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) heard learned advocates on both sides.

(2.) this appeal which has been preferred by the owner and insurance company is directed against an award in m.v.c. No. 501 of 1991 which has been made by the m.a.c.t., shimoga. The incident in question took place on 27-4-1991 when the wife of the deceased by name sunkamma and her infant child were travelling by an auto-rikshaw bearing No. Cts 8127 which collided with a bus. In the incident that ensued, the auto turned turtle, the wife of the claimant was trapped under the vehicle and the record indicates that she died on the spot. The child was also thrown out and was hospitalised and died after one week. The present claim petition however is confined for some strange reasons to compensation in relation to the death of the wife only. The claimant is the husband who was aged 25 years. He had submitted that his wife was only 18 years old when the incident happened, that she was working as a basket weaver and earning about Rs. 500/- to Rs. 600/- per month. The learned trial judge has discarded this claim and has ultimately for purposes of consideration taken only a figure of Rs. 200/- per month. Applying the conventional multiplier method, he has awarded a sum of Rs. 36,000/- under head-1 namely, loss of income resulting in the death of sunkamma. The learned trial judge has thereafter awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- under the head, loss of life, mental agony, pain and suffering. It is this head that is seriously assailed.

(3.) appellants learned Advocate points out that the evidence recorded is minimal. There is only a bare recital of the fact that the claimant's wife lost her life and that he is aggrieved by the incident. The record does indicate that this is not a case where she was seriously injured or where she underwent some long period of treatment and hospitalisation. The argument therefore is that unlike in an injury case the claimant would not qualify for any compensation under this head. It is further submitted that the aspect of pain and suffering etc., is something which the party who has undergone the trauma alone is entitled to. In this case, the claimant is the husband. Admittedly, he was not present on the scene of the incident, there was no period of agony that he had to undergo watching his young wife in a hospital or in a precarious condition and therefore, according to the appellants learned advocate, the claimant is totally disqualified from any compensation under this head. Strong reliance is placed on a division bench decision of the gauhati high court in the case of j.r. saha v national insurance company limited and others. Among other aspects of the case, the division bench had the occasion to examine in great detail the english law as also the Indian law with regard to this aspect of the matter and the court came to the conclusion that the facts in that case where the mother was admittedly not present when the incident took place, where the death was instantaneous and where therefore, there was no specific evidence of any period of pain and suffering etc., having been undergone, that no compensation could be awarded under this head. On an analogy, appellants learned Advocate submits that the present case being identical on facts, the claimant would not qualify for compensation on this ground.