P ANTHAIAH AND SONS Vs. KUMMARIKANTHA DIBBAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the first Defendant. The first respondent herein filed a suit O. S. 53 of 1959 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Narasaraopet for recovery of Rs. 12,000.00 by way of compensation for himself and on behalf of his four children consequent upon the death of his wife aged 32 years, who was an employee as a sweeper in a Panchayat Board earning a salary of Rs. 36.00 per month, in an accident as a result of the negligent driving of a bus belonging to the first defendant in the suit. The second defendant who is an Insurance Company was the authorised insurer for the said vehicle. The suit was contested by the first defendant on various grounds including the liability and quantum of damages. The trial Court found that the first defendant was liable and awarded Rs. 6,000.00- as compensation taking several factors into consideration. Against the said judgment , the first defendant alone filed an appeal A. S. 68 of 1961 to this Court. Before the learned Judge (Gopal Rao Ekbote, J.) objection was raised in respect of two sums of money out of the amount decreed by the trial Court. The first is a sum of Rs. 1,000.00 allowed on account of loss of educational concessions and secondly a sum of Rs. 2,3000.00 awarded under the head of loss of services to the members of the family due to the death of the plaintiffs wife. The learned Judge agreed with the contention of the first defendant and disallowed the sum of Rs. 1,000.00 towards loss of educational concessions. As regards the second item of compensation, the learned Judge held that the Court below was right in awarding the amount on the ground of loss of services of the deceased to the members of the family. Against the said judgment, the first defendant filed the above Letters Patent Appeal. The plaintiff did not question the decree of the Court in the first Appeal in so far as the trial Courts decree was reduced by a sum of Rs. 1,000.00

(2.) The main point for consideration in this appeal is whether the courts below were right in allowing a sum of Rupees 2,300/- towards loss of services which the members of the family would have received but for the accident. On this question, the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to place before us any authority in support of his contention that no compensation can be awarded in lieu of the loss of services. The learned counsel placed reliance upon several decisions including one of the Supreme Court but it is not necessary to refer to any of them as they do not deal with the present question. On the other hand, there is abundant authority against the appellants contention. In Mayne & Mc Gregor on Damages Twelfth Edition (1961) the law on the point is stated in paragraph 826 as follows:

(3.) Again in Preston v. Hunting Air Transport Ltd., (1956) 1 QB 454 at page 461 a case arising under the Carriage by Air Act, it was held, construing the words "damage sustained" as follows at page 461:---