M. Jagannadha Rao, J. - (1.)THIS appeal raises the question of computation of damages upon the death of a 'housewife and mother of children', as also computation in the case of an 'injured housewife'.
(2.)A large number of people died while travelling in a passenger bus to Srisailam on 12.4.1981. We are concerned here with claims arising in O.P. No. 57 of 1981. The claimant's wife aged 34 years and three male children aged 12, 8 and 6 years respectively, died. The deceased (Sic. claimant) was aged 40 years at the time of accident. Unfortunately, the claim was made only for Rs. 40,000/ - though there have been four deaths involved in this O.P. The lower Tribunal awarded Rs. 11,000/ - towards pecuniary loss, Rs. 3,500/ - towards loss of consortium and Rs. 3,500/ - towards pain, suffering and loss of expectation of life, in all, Rs. 18,000/ - for all the four deaths. The husband has preferred this appeal.
The computation of damages consequent on the death of a housewife is based on certain special principles. If she is a mother of children, additional factors fall to be considered. I shall first refer to cases of fatal accidents and then to cases of injured women.

(3.)A wife and mother is generally not a bread -winner and her loss is a loss of the gratuitous services rendered by her. In Berry v. Humm, (1915) 1 KB 627, it was held that such a loss was recoverable under the Fatal Accidents Act and the contention that absence of money contribution by the deceased required no compensation to be paid, was rejected. Scrutton, J. said:
I can see no reason in principle why such pecuniary loss should be limited to the value of money lost or the money value of things lost, as contributions of food or clothing, and why I should be bound to exclude the monetary loss incurred by replacing services rendered gratuitously by a relative, if there was a reasonable prospect of their being rendered freely in the future but for the death.

[Emphasis added]

On the facts of that case, the award of £ 35 by the jury was confirmed, dividing the same as £ 20 for loss of service or payment to a substituted housekeeper and £ 15 for extra expense of management by a housekeeper instead of by the wife. The above case was followed in Feay v. Barnwell, (1938) 1 All ER 31, where the husband aged 73 years was completely blind and the wife (aged 71 years) had earlier done everything in the house for him, read to him and taken him out for walks. Singleton, J. observed:

... in order to get someone suitable, he will have to pay 25s. a week, and also to provide the keep of that person who comes in to look after him as housekeeper, and to some extent, as nurse, because he can do little for himself. It must be remembered that someone coming to a house in that way, in the ordinary sense, is not as economical as the wife, another bedroom is necessary. There is additional expense of one kind or another.

Taking the estimated cost of the upkeep of help which the Plaintiff would require as £ 1 a week, the court held that there was a loss of £ 2.5s. a week and computing for 5 years, awarded £ 625 as damages under the Fatal Accidents Act. The amount of loss consequent upon the death of the wife will often be calculated by the expense incurred in procuring for the husband, the services of a housekeeper or servant since his wife's death and in providing board and lodging for such housekeeper or servant as in Jeffrey v. Smith, (1970) 114 Sol Jo 268. In that case, the Plaintiff was 51 years and there were three children aged 9, 6 and 3, the wife having died. His mother -in -law had looked after the children since the wife's death but her bad health prevented her from continuing to do so. The Plaintiff called evidence from an employment agency to the effect that a housekeeper to look after the children would cost atleast £ 10 per week. The Judge took a multiplier of 10 years and awarded £ 5,200. On appeal, the award was confirmed. The housekeeper employed may well be a relative as in Morris v. Rigby, (1966) 110 Sol Jo 834. In that case, the husband, a medical officer, earning £ 2,820 a year, claimed damages for the death of his wife. He had five children aged two to fifteen years. He got his wife's sister to come and take care of them and do the domestic duties, paying her a gross wage of £ 20 a week. The judge awarded £ 8,000 and the award was confirmed In Regan v. Williamson, 1977 ACJ 331 (QBD, England), also, the housekeeper employed was a relative. There, the wife was 37 years at her death and she left behind her, her husband and four sons aged 13, 10, 7 and 2 years. A relative came on daily (except weekends) to provide meals and to look after the boys. She was paid £ 16 per week and it cost the Plaintiff further £ 6.50 per week for her food, journeys to and from home and national insurance stamp. The Plaintiff estimated that his wife's loss had cost him £ 10 per week to clothe and feed. Watkins, J. held that though, according to precedents £ 22.50 ( £ 16+6.50) per week minus £ 10 per week, would be sufficient, justice required that the term 'services' should be widely construed. Watkins, J. observed:

I am, with due respect to the other Judges to whom I have been referred, of the view that the word 'services' has been too narrowly construed. It should, at least, include an acknowledgement that a wife and mother does not work to set hours and, still less, to rule. She is in constant attendance, save for those hours when she is, if that is a fact, at work. During some of those hours she may well give the children instructions on essential matters to do with their upbringing and, possibly, with such things as their home work. This sort of attention seems to be as much a service, and probably more valuable to them, than the other kinds of service conventionally so regarded.

[Emphasis supplied]

and hastened to add:

am aware that there are good mothers and bad mothers. It so happens that I am concerned in the present case with a woman who was a good wife and mother.

On the basis, the figure for dependency was raised from £ 12.50 ( £ 22.50 -10.0) per week to £ 20 per week and a further sum of £ 1.50 was added for the deceased's financial contribution to the home, had she eventually gone out to work again. A multiplier of 11 was applied as the Plaintiff was 43 years. The award under the Fatal Accidents Act, was £ 1238. In Mehmet v. Perry, 1978 ACJ 112 (QBD, England), the husband had to look after five children aged 14, 11, 7, 6 and 3 years. The two youngest children suffered from a serious hereditary blood disease requiring medication and frequent visits to hospital. Consequently, the husband had to give up his employment after his wife's death and devoted full time to the care of the family. Between September, 1973 when his wife was killed and the trial in October, 1976, his net average loss of earnings were £ 1,500 a year. His future net loss would be at the rate of £ 2,000 a year. It was held by Brain Neill, QC (sitting as a deputy Judge) that, in view of the medical evidence, the giving up of the job was proper and that damages should be assessed not at the cost of employing a housekeeper but by reference to the Plaintiff's loss of wages since the loss of wages represented the cost of providing the services of a full time housekeeper in substitution for the wife. In addition, the children were entitled, on the basis of Regan v. Williamson, 1977 ACJ 331 (QBD, England), to recover £ 1,500 as part of their damages, a sum of £ 1,000 for the loss of 'personal attention' to them as a 'mother' as distinct from her services as a housekeeper but that, that sum must be kept within modest limits as the Plaintiff was at home all the time. The Plaintiff was also held entitled to some damages for his loss as a husband, of the 'personal care and attention of the wife' but that sum should be quite small to avoid any overlap with the damages awarded for housekeeping services. The last of the children required as per medical advice, support for 12 years. A multiplier of 8 was adopted for the family as a unit and 12 for the Plaintiff and a sum of £ 19,000 was arrived at

;