The wife of a man who died three years ago after falling into a cesspit at the Robin Hood Pub was awarded damages of $163,709.97 in the Supreme Court yesterday.

But Puisne Judge the Hon. Mr. Justice Meerabux deducted 25 percent of the sum for contributory negligence, leaving a total of $122,779.97.

To that amount was added the statutory sum of $7,500 for bereavement, giving Mrs. Marcia Grant a total of $130,279.77.

Mrs. Grant's husband Mr. Melbourne (Willie) Grant died of septic complications after being overcome by high concentratations of hydrogen sulphide in the cesspit he was cleaning.

Mr. Meerabux's decision, announced yesterday, ended a court action launched after the incident in August, 1991.

Mr. Grant, his cousin Mr. Charles Grant and Mr. Antoine Burgess were cleaning the pub's cesspit when toxic fumes overcame them.

Charles Grant and Mr. Burgess became immersed in the sewage after falling unconscious. Willie Grant, the "look man'', went down to rescue them.

But he too became unconscious because of the high concentration of hydrogen sulphide. He collapsed into the pit.

Fire Department officials pulled them out. Although Willie Grant regained consciousness in hospital, he died 11 days later as a result of septic complications.

Mr. Burgess also died from the incident. And Charles Grant recovered after a hospital stay.

Mrs. Grant subsequently sued Charles Grant and Robin Hood Enterprises Ltd.

seeking damages on her behalf and that her nine-year-old daughter.

Her lawyer Mr. Darcy Lord said they were entirely dependent on the income of Willie Grant, a mechanic and part-time sanitation worker.

In June, Mr. Lord told the Supreme Court that Charles Grant was also being sued on the grounds of negligence because he did not have rescue equipment in place after the accident.

The court also heard that Charles Grant, who had been in the sanitation business for 20 years, did not require his workers to wear certain protective clothing.

He also had no emergency equipment and no first aid equipment and none of his workers were trained in CPR.

Mr. Meerabux said yesterday that Mrs. Grant averred that her husband's injuries and death happened by reason of negligence and breach of statutory duty on the part of the defendants.

Robin Hood Enterprises Ltd. and the Robin Hood Pub and Restaurant Ltd., who were represented by Mr. Trevor Moniz, denied they were guilty of any negligence.

Mr. Meerabux said he found that Charles Grant knew there were fumes in the cesspit and that such fumes could cause a person cleaning it to faint in the pit.

"I find that the practice of a person relying on his heavy breathing as a signal to get out of a cesspit was a practice that operated on instinct or on a hit or miss basis and in my view was not the safest and best practice,'' Mr.

Meerabux said.

He added: "In my judgment common sense showed that such practice was clearly bad and should have discontinued. In my view it was a practice in which a disaster was waiting to happen. And I find that Charles Grant did not strictly comply with the safest and best practice.

"I have come to the conclusion that had Melbourne (Willie) Grant secured himself with a rope it is probable, though not certain, that the chance of the severity of his injuries would have been reduced and he might have not died.

"He should, therefore, bear some of the blame for causing or contributing to his death and I therefore so find.'' Mr. Meerabux also said: "One has a feeling of distaste about finding a rescuer guilty of contributory negligence. In my opinion it can be rarely appropriate to do so.

"The major responsibility must be borne by Robin Hood Enterprises Limited and Robin Hood Pub and Restaurant Limited defendants.'' Arguments for costs by Charles Grant's lawyer Mr. Richard Hector and Mr.

Trevor Moniz will be heard at a later date.