Through this judgment, I propose to dispose of the following five revision petitions as common question of law and facts arise therein:-- (1)Civil Revision No,1898 of 1986, titled Mrs. Nasim Rashid Mirza v. M.C., Okara.
(2)Civil Revision No,1899 of 1986, Mrs. Nasim Rashid Mirza v. M.C., Okara.
(3)Civil Revision No,1900 of 1986, Mirza Muhammad Rashid Ahmad Raza v. M.C., Okara.
(4)Civil Revision No,1901 of 1986, Mirza Muhammad Rashid Ahmad Raza v. M.C., Okara.
(5)Civil Revision No,1656-D of 1988, M.C., Okara v. Mst. Nasim Rashid Mirza, etc.
2. These revision petitions arose out of litigation pertaining to an incident that took place on 8-2- 1984 when Mrs. Nasim Rashid Mirza 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 recovery of damages to the tune of Rs,24,900 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 in order to protect the citizen from such incidents and since it failed to perform its duty, the incient in question took place, for which, it was liable to pay damages to her as under:--
(1) For physical injuries due to dog Site.Rs,10,000
(2) Mental shock. Rs, 5,000
(3) 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, 900 Total:Rs,24,900
3. The suit was contested by 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, as a result of injuries suffered by the lady.
5. Learned Civil Judge, after recording the evidence in both the suits, decreed the suit of the petitioner to the 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 Additional 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 abovementioned revision petitions.
7. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that no justification existed in law for learned Additional District Judge to reduce the amount of damages awarded to her. On the contrary full amount of Rs,24,900 as claimed in her suit, should have allowed. As regards case of Mr. Rashid Ahmad Raza, the judgment of lower Appellate Court is criticised as being illegal and wholly unjustified.
On the other hand, Sh. Muhammad Sadullah, Advocate, learned counsel for Municipal Committee while defending the impugned judgment in the case of Mirza Rashid Ahmed Raza, has assailed the validity of judgment passed in the case of the petitioner as, in his view, the lady is not entitled to any damages whatsoever.
8. It is not seriously disputed that the incident in question did take place. There are concurrent findings of fact in this respect recorded by two learned Courts below, therefore, I need not dilate upon it further and the same is maintained. The liability of Municipal Committee to destroy stray dogs was admitted by learned counsel during the course Of arguments. The question that needs to be addressed to is as to whether the petitioner and/or her husband are entitled to claim damages and if so, to what extent.
9. It is in the evidence of Rafiq Ahmad, Dispenser P.W.2 District Hospital, Okara that the petitioner was first taken to the Emergency Ward of the hospital for treatment. Thereafter, she was given 14 anti-rabic injections. The petitioner has deposed that she was disabled to move about and even perform her marital obligations for two weeks and had to be taken to Lahore as well for treatment.
Mirza Muhammad Rashid Ahmad Raza, her husband has supported her in so far her treatment both at Okara and Lahore and inability to provide consortium to him is concerned. He has also deposed that he suffered financial loss in terms of his professional work as he had to refuse a few briefs as he was pre-occupied in attending to his wife.
9. Learned Additional District Judge assessed the damage for personal injury as Rs,10,000 and for the "amount of inconvenience, expenditure and disturbance" as Rs,1,400 thus making a total sum of Rs,11,400 as being realizable from the respondent. The claim of Mirza Muhammad Rashid Ahmad Raza was turned down in toto by holding that no damage was done to him directly by any negligent act of the respondent. It was also held that he had not suffered "any unusual damage".
10.It is well-settled that a plaintiff is entitled to general damages in respect of the pain and suffering which he has undergone up to the time of trial. Shock should be taken into account in considering pain and suffering. The plaintiff is also entitled to recover damages in respect of all expenses reasonably incurred as a result of injuries. The measure of damages will be the sum expended.
In the instant case, there are no figures available on record to enable an accurate assessment of damages to be made, so a fair estimate had to be worked out.
11.In my view amount of Rs,1,400 as awarded by learned Additional District Judge is a fair and reasonable compensation as special damage, denoting the pecuniary loss that had crystallized in terms of money before the trial.
The amount of Rs,10,000 awarded to her as general damages for mental shcok, worry and physical pain as well as humiliation due to exposure of her leg as a result of dog bite would reasonably compensate her. The assessm ent of general damages is neither arbitrary nor fanciful so as to justify interference in revisional jurisdiction. Her Revision Petitions Nos.1898 of 1986 and 1899 of 1986 are accordingly dismissed.
12. As regards the revision petitions filed by Mirza Rashid Ahmad Raza (C.Rs,1900 and 1901 of 1986), 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 case 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 doubted 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 Trokey v. Hollier (1955) 92 CLR 618 has held 'to award damages to a husband for the loss of his wife'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 recovery because proprietary right of consortium including servitum is property of the husband".
However, the husband suing for loss of 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 petitioner-husband 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 of 1998) is dismissed.
Parties to bear their respective costs in all the matters.