LexC. K. SUBRAMONIA IYER & ORS. versus T. KUNHIKUTTAN NAIR AND 6 ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
688
IC. K. SUBRAMONIA IYER & ORS.
v.
T. KUNHIKUTTAN NAIR AND 6 ORS.
October 8, 1969
(J. C. SHAH AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.j
Fatal Accidents Act {13 of 1855), ss. IA and 2-Assessment of
damages-Principles for.
The appellants filed a suit claiming a sum of Rs. 30,000 as damages
under os. IA and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 for the death of
their son aged 8 years. The boy had stood first in Standa~d III and bis
future was claimed to be bright. The trial court computed the damages
unde<> ss. IA and 2 at Rs. 5,000. In appeal the High Court determined
-- the damages under s. IA at Rs. 5,000 and undelr s. 2 at Rs. 1,000. In
appeai ·by certificate before this Court.
HELD : Compulsory damages under s. IA of the Act for W<ongful
death must be limited strictly to the pecuniary loss to the beneficiaries
and under s. 2 the measure of damages is the economic loss sustained by
the estate.
There can be no -exact uniform rule for measuring the value
of human life and the measure of damages cannot he arrived at by precise
mathematical calculations but the amount recoverable depends
on
the
particular facts and circumstances of each case.
The life expectancy
of the deceased or of the beneficiaries whichever is shorter is an imp0rtant
-factor,_ ~ince the elements which go to make up thr value of the life of
the deceased to the designated beneficiaries are necessarily personal to
each case in the very nature of things, there can be no exact or uniform
rule for measuring the value of human life. In assessing the damages the
court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in speculations
or fancy though conjecture to some extent is inevitable.
As a general
rure parents are entitled to recover the present cash value of the prospec-
tive ~er vice of the deceased minor child.
In addition they may receive
compensation for loss of pecuniary benefits reasonably to be expected
afer the child attains majority. In the matter of ascertainment of dama-
ges, the appellate court should be slow in disturbing the findinl!' reached
by th~. courts below, if they have taken all the relevant facts into consi-
deration. [695 F-696 A]
/)arjes and Anr, v. Powell Duffer:;n Associated Collieries Ltd. [1942]
A.C. 601, Franklin v. South East Railway Company, 157 E.R. 3 H. &
N. 448, Taff Vale Railwl!Y Company v, llmklns, (1913] A.C. 1, Barnett v.
Cohen & Orf. [1921] 2 K.B. 461, N•-nce v. British Columbia Electric Rly,
Co. Ltd. [1951] A.C. 601 and Gobald Motor Service Ltd. & Anr. v. R.M.K.
Veluswami & Ors. [1962] 1 S.C.R. 929, applied.
(ii) In the present case although the deceased was a bright ollild, it was
uncertain how much assistance he would have given after growing up to
his parents. The father was a plrosperous business man and hardly needed
assistance.
There was no material on record as to the age of the parents
and their state of health.
On the basis of the evidence on. record it could
not be said that the dama~es ordered bv the High Court were inadequ.ate.
[696 Cl
CIVIL APPELLATE JUR1smcTION : Civil Appeal No. 2227 of
1966.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
_.
A
B
c
D
E
-
F
H
c. K. s. IYER v. T. K. NAIR (Hegde, !.)
6 89
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated December 10,
1963 of the Kerala High Court in Appeal Suit No. 1094 of 1959.
S. V. Gupta and Lily Thomas, for the appellants.
Rameshwar Nath, for respondent No. 2.
Sardar Bahadur, Vishnu Bahadur Saharya and
Y ougindra
Khushalani, for respondent No. 3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hegde, J. The question for decision in ~his ~ppeal by certifi-
cate is short but important and that quest1011 1s what are the
principles governing the assessment of damages under ss. lA
and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act (Act XIII of 1855) (to be
hereinafter referred to as the Act) ?
One Krishnamoorthy son of plaintiffs 1 and 2 aged about
8 years was hit by a bus _owned by the 1st defendant (who died
during the pendency of this suit) and driven by the second defen-
dant on February 26, 1956. As a result of that accident Krishna-
moorthy sustained very severe injuries. He became unconscious
almost immediately after the accident and died in the hospital
on the early morning of February 28, 1956.
Krishnamoorthy
was the eldest son of plaintiffs 1 and 2. Both the courts have
come to the conclusion that he was a bright boy and was at the
top of his class in his s ~hool. At the time of his death he was
in Standard III.
His parents arExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.