JUDGMENT SAEI 1MJRREHMAN KARRURII. J. - Through this judgment. I propose to dispose of the following live revision petitions tis common question of law and facts arise therein: J
1. Civil Revision No. ISojt/|ONb tilled: Mrs. Nasitn Rashid Mika r. M.C. Ohara.
2. Civil Revision No. IS99/X(>.
Mrs. Nasitn Rashid Mika r. M.C. Okara.
3. Civil Revision No. I00l)/X0.
Mirza Mohammad Rashid Ahmad Raza r. M.C. Okara.
4. Civil Revision No. I90lj/N(>; Mina Mohammad Rashid Ahmad Raza r. M.C. Okara.
Civil Revision No. l(>5(>j/r)/XX M.C. Okara r. Mst. Nasitn Rashid Mirza. Etc
2. These revision petitions arose out of litigation pertaining to tin incident that took place on S.2.10X4 when Mrs. Nasim Rashid Raza petitioner, while on her way home, after shopping in the bazar, was bitten by a stray dog in main street of New Lalazar Colony. Okara. Feeling aggrieved, she filed a suit for rccovev of damages to the tune of Rs. 24.000/- against Municipal Committee. Okara wherein, it was. Inter alia pleaded that as a result of injuries suffered by her. She became unconscious and had to undergo prolonged treatment. According to her, it was the legal duty of the Municipal Committee to destroy the stray dogs irder Id protect the citizen from .Such incidents and since it failed to perform its y, the incident in question took place, for which, it was lialilc to pay damages to tis under:'
For physical injuries due to dog bile. Rs. KMHK)/-
2. Mental shock. Rs. 5.000/- X Expenses incurred for special injections, Rs, 5.000/- 4, Inability of the petitioner to move about in the society, Rs. 4,000/-
5. Damage to the clothes worn by the petitioner. Rs.000/- . Total: Rs. 24.000/- V The suit was contested by respondent No. I. The factum of receipt of juries as a result of dog bile was denied, it was. However, pleaded that the lunicipal Committee was duly performing its duties about elimination of stray >gs and there was no default in this behalf.
4. A separate suit was tiled by Mir/a Rashid Ahmad Raza. Advocate/ usband of the petitioner, claiming damages for the same amount i.e. Rs. 24.000/- on account of personal loss, inconvenience and loss of professional income, as a ;sult of injuries suffered by the lady.
5. Learned Civil Judge, after recording the evidence in both the suits, ccrccd the suit of the petitioner to there tune of Rs. 10.000/- and the suit of her usband for Rs. 15.000/-.
(>. Two appeals were tiled by respondent. Municipal Committee before earned lower Appellate Court, as a result whereof, learned Addl. District Judge chile maintaining the judgment of Trial Court on merits, reduced the amount ol lamages awarded to the petitioner to Rs. 10.000Suit of Mr. Rashid Ahmad laza was dismissed. Hence the above mentioned revision petitions.
7. It is contended Ion behalf of the petitioner that no justification existed n law for learned Addl.
District Judge to reduce the amount of damages awarded o her. On the contrary full amount of Rs.
24000/- as claimed in her suit, should tave allowed. As regards case of Mr. Rashid Ahmad Raza, the judgment ol lower Appellate Court is criticized as being illegal and wholly unjustified.
From such incidents and since it failed to perform its duty, the incident in question took place, for which, it wan liable to pay damages to her as under:-
1. 2. #tbs
3. Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 5,000/-
4. Rs. 5,000/-
5. Rs. 4,000/-
6. Rs.900/-
7. #to
8. E'er physical injuries due to dog bite.
9. Mental shock,
10. Expenses incurred for special injections,
11. Inability of the petitioner to move about in the society.
12. Damage to the clothes worn by the petitioner.
Total: Rs, 24,900/- 3, The suit was contested b^r respondent No. 1. The factum of receipt of injuries as a result of dog bite was denied. It was, however, pleaded that the Municipal Committee waS'duly performing its duties about elimination of stray dogs and there was no default in this behalf.
4, A separate suit was filed by Mirza Rashid Ahmad Raza, Advocate, husband of the petitioner, claiming damages for the same amount i.e. Rs. 24,900/-, on account of personal loss, inconvenience and loss of professional income, a income, as a result <*>f injuries suffered by the lady.
5. Learned Civil Judge, after recording the evidence in both the suits, decreed the suit of the petitioner to there tune of Rs. 19,900/- and the suit of her husband for Rs. 15.000/-.
6. Two appeals were filed by respondent, Municipal Committee before learned lower Appellate Court, as a result whereof, learned Addl. District Judge while maintaining the judgment of Trial Court on merits, reduced the amount of damages awarded to the petitioner to Rs.10,900/-. Suit of Mr. Rashid Ahmad Raza was dismissed. Hence the above mentioned revision petitions.
7. It is contended ton behalf of the petitioner that no justification existed in law for learned Addl.
District Judge to reduce the amount of damages awarded to her. On the contrary full amount of Rs.
24900/- as claimed in her suit, should have allowed. As regards case of Mr. Rashid Ahmad Raza, the judgment of lower Appellate Court is criticized as being illegal and wholly unjustified.
On the other hand Sh. Muhammad Asadullah, Advocate, learned counsel for Municipal Committee while defending the impugned^H&i^Rr^itfin
11. In my view amount of Rs.^14(M)/- as awarded by learned Addl. District Judge is a lair and reasonable compensation as special damage denoting the pecuniary loss that had crystalized in terms of money before the trial.
The amount of Rs. 10,000/-' awarded to her as general damages for mental shock, worry and physical pain as well as humiliation due to exposure of her leg tis a result of dog bile would reasonable compensate her. The assessment of general damages is neither arbitrary not fanciful so as to justify interference in revisional jurisdiction. Her Revision Petitions No. 18l),X/.X(> and I8W/86 are accordingly dismissal.
12. As regards the revision petitions liled by Mirza Rashid Ahmad Raza (C.R. 1'XM) and I DU 1 of I'J.XO).
These did not merit dismissal. A husband is not entitled to recover damages for the injuries suffered by his wife but his cause of action in such a ease is for loss of consortium. The husband has a legal right to the society of the wife involving all the amenities and conjugal incidents of the relation, it cannot be doubled that even a temporary impairment of a wife's capacity to render assistance to her husband or perform household duties is enough to found an action by him.
13. High Court of Australia in case of Trokcv I . Huffier (l'>55) K>2 t'.L.R. 618 has held "(o'award damages to it husband for the loss of his wile's society and services does not mean that there will be a double recovery. If no award is made to the husband there will not be even a single recowry because proprietary right of consortium including seviutm is properly of the husband."
However, the husband suing for loss o(consortium cannot recover for mental distress, diminished happiness or lessened enjoyment of home life, it is well settled that loss of consortium is not a cause of action for which generous liberal damages should be awarded.
14. Keeping in view the above principles. I deem it to be the right of the pelitioncr-hisband to be awarded sum of Rs. 1.000/- by way of general damages. His two revision petitions are allowed in these terms.
15. Consequently, the revision-petition of Municipal Committee (C.R.No. 1656-D/8X) is dismissed.
Parties to bear their respective costs in till the mailers.