E. Satyanarayana vs Jakkamsetti Satyavathi and Others

Rama Rao, J.—This appeal is at the instance of the owner of the lorry as against the award of Rs. 60,000/- out of which Rs. 50,000/- is given for loss of earnings and Rs. 10,000/- towards damages for mental agony. On 7-10-1980 the deceased and Ors. were carrying ducks in the lorry and the lorry met with an accident as a result of which the deceased died. The widow, two children and mother of the deceased filed a claim petition for compensation of Rs. 1,30,000/-. Ultimately the court below awarded Rs. 60,000/- out of which Rs. 10,000/- is awarded for mental agony. The finding regarding rash and negligent driving is on an appraisal of facts and circumstances and does not warrant interference.

The learned Counsel for the appellant stressed that the award of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony is not sustainable as the consideration of mental agony of the respondents of the deceased is not relevant. The learned Counsel for the respondent seeking to sustain the order of the Tribunal contended that the damages can be given for pain and suffering of the deceased if not for mental agony as such.

The learned Counsel for the appellant in support of his contention relied upon the full bench decision in A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Ch. Narasavva 1987(1) A.L.T. 142- wherein it is held that the compensation for mental agony of the dependents is not sustainable. In Polavarapu Somarajyam and Others Vs. Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad, , the Division Bench of this Court held that the incident of death must have caused great mental pain and anguish to the claimant as well as the children and sustained compensation. The Full Bench in the decision 1987 (1) A L T. 142 (supra) held that the view taken by the Division Bench cannot be considered good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in N. Sivammal and Others Vs. Managing Director, Pandian Roadways Corporation and Another, . The Supreme Court held as follows:

The High Court held that award of Rs. 5000/- under the Head mental agony suffered by the deceased cannot legally be sustained. This is only the different way of looking at the same thing which is legally permissible. Muthukrishnan lived for 19 days since the accident and he was through out under a shadow of death. He had suffered severe injuries. He must have suffered continuous pain and compensation was admissible for pain and suffering, suffered by the deceased. Therefore, the amount of 5000/- which the High Court held inadmissible is legitimately admissible under another head and we restore the amount of Rs. 5000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

The Supreme Court held that the award of compensation for mental agony is not permissible but ultimately sustained on the score of pain and suffering by the deceased. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that this principle cannot be injected into the instant case as the concept of pain and suffering is considered by the Supreme Court as the deceased lived for 19 days after the accident. The duration or longivity of survival after the accident is not the criterion and it can be presumed that pain and suffering is the normal event in accident. The death in an accident is generally the result of violent impact on the body resulting in serious injuries causing eructating pain. In the event of death in an accident the existence of pain and suffering is a normal feature. The magnitude of suffering may vary and in instantaneous deaths also the pain and suffering is invariably present and in the event of survival for hours or days the suffering is known to others and in instantaneous death also the existence of suffering cannot be denied but the death gives a quietus to the suffering and it is not known to others. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court the damages awarded can be sustained for pain and suffering by the deceased. The learned Counsel says that the award of Rs. 10,000/-is excessive. In view of violent impact and instantaneous death the pain and suffering would have been acute and the compensation is reasonable. Appeal dismissed. No costs.