Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The learned counsel for the appellant, Sri P. Gopaldas representing Sri P. Ramakrishna Raju has contended that the award is liable to be enhanced not only by increasing pecuniary damages but that some amount must be awarded for the non-pecuniary damages, in all cases of death. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Sri S. Hanumaiah has, however, contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is sufficient. He also contended that in view of the Judgment of the Full Bench in A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Narsavva no amount is payable towards pain and suffering (physical or mental) or loss of ameneties. He also contended that in cases of death, instantaneous or otherwise, no amount can be claimed towards non-pecuniary damages viz., loss of expectation of life, pain and suffering and loss of ameneties.

3. On these contentions four points arise for consideration :--

(1) Whether the decision of the Full Bench in A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Narsavva, F.B. precludes the making of an award for pain and suffering, (physical or mental), or other non-pecuniary damages or loss to the estate?

(2) What is the life-span or expectation of life, at different age levels applicable to our country?

(3) Whether in case of death, (instantaneously or otherwise), it is not obligatory for the Tribunal to award non-pecuniary damages for loss of expectation of life, pain and suffering and loss of ameneties--for the short interval before the death--and if so what should the conventional amount be?

10. It is unfortunate that several tribunals in our Stale are not awarding any amount towards non-pecuniary damages in case of fatal acccidents where the deceased died instantaneously or where the deceased died some time after the accident. According to the decision of the Supreme Court in Gobald Motor Service v. Veluswami, , the damages have to be computed both towards the loss to the dependency as well as loss to the estate. Even in Sivammal's case (2 supra), an award was made in this regard. In A.P.S.R.T.C. v. S.V. Perumal Chetty, 1982 (2) ALT 922, I had occasion to consider in greater detail, whether non-pecuniary damages falling under the head of loss to the estate and comprising these three items--loss of expectation of life, pain and suffering and loss of amenities--are to be paid even in cases of instantaneous death.

11. In Gobald Motor Service v. Veluswami(5 Supra) the Supreme Court awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss to the estate which obviously comprises of the award towards loss of expectation of life and for pain and suffering and for loss of ameneties. The Supreme Court case related to an accident long before 1960. It is therefore reasonable to award a total sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages under the head of 'loss to the estate comprising of the three items--loss of expectation of life, pain and suffering and loss of ameneties-- , even in case of instantaneous death. In Sivammal's case (2 supra) also, Rs. 5,000/- was awarded as non-pecuniary damages.