GOBALD MOTOR SERVICE LTD. & ANOTHER versus R. M. K. VELUSW AMI & OTHERS

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 929 · Decided: 14-04-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
929 
The Notice of Motion to raise other questions in 
the High Court was rightly dismissed. 
Apart from 
the fact that the Notice of Motion was barred by time 
and there was no application for condonation of delay, 
the questions which were sought to be raised were 
rightly held either to be covered by the question ans-
wered or they did not arise at all. The constitutio-
nal question under Art. 14 of the Constitution cannot 
be raised in these proceedings because as we have said 
above this Court is exercising its advisory jurisdiction 
and its power is confined to the questions which arise 
in an appeal. 
This appeal must therefore be dismissed with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
GOBALD MOTOR SERVICE LTD. & ANOTHER 
v. 
R. M. K. VELUSW AMI & OTHERS 
(K. SuBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL and 
J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Fatal Accidents-Negligent act of driver of bus-Acting in the 
course of employment-Liability of owner-Damages-Principles 
of ascertainment-Pecuniary loss and loss of expectation of life-If 
same person could claim under both heads-Fatal Accidents Act, 
r855 (IJ of r855), SS. I, 2. 
A bus run by the appellant met with an accident as a result 
of which R died. R's dependants and heirs e.g. the father, 
widow and sons. brought a suit for compensation under s. I of 
the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, for loss of pecuniary benefit sus-
tained by them personally and under s. 2 thereof for the loss 
sustained by the estate on account of the death of R. 
The 
High Court found that the bus was driven at an excessive speed 
and there was negligence on the part of the driver and that the 
appellants were liable for the same. On the question of damages, 
it confirmed the amount of compensation of Rs. 25,000 under s. 1 
of the Act for the loss of pecuniary advantage and of Rs. 6,ooo 
under s. 2 of the Act for loss of expectation of life. The ques-
tions for consideration were (r) whether the accident wa> due 
117 
1961 
Rajputana 
Textiles 
(Agencies) Lid. 
v. 
Com,nissioner af 
lncome~tax, 
Bombay City 
Kapur J. 
z96r 
April 14. 
930 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
r96r 
to any negligence on the part of the driver; (2) whether the 
courts below were right in awarding compensation under s. r of 
Gobald Motor 
the Act for pecuniary loss sustained by the widow and the sons 
Service Ltd. 
of the deceased; and (3) whether the sum awarded as damages 
v. 
under s. 2 of the Act for loss of expectation of life should go 
V•luswami 
towards the reduction of the compensation awarded for pecu-
niary loss sustained under s. r of the Act, as otherwise it would 
be duplication of damages in respect of the same wrong. 
Held, that where on the basis of the evidence and on broad 
probabilities it is found that the speed at which the bus was 
driven was excessive having regard to the nature of the ground 
on which the accident happened, there is a presumption that 
the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver. As 
the driver was acting in the course of his employment, the mas-
ter would be liable for such accident, unless the presumption is 
rebutted by the master. 
In the present case, on account of the negligence of the 
driver in the course of his employment the accident happened, 
and, therefore, the appellant was liable for the same. 
Barkway v. South Wales Transport Co. Ltd., [r948] 2 All E.R. 
460, Joel v. Morison, (1&34) 6 Car. & P. 501 and Storey v. Ashton, 
(1869) L.R. 4 Q.B. 476, applied. 
That the actual extent of the pecuniary loss to the aggriev--
ed party may depend upon data which cannot be ascertained 
accurately, but must necessarily be an estimate, or even partly 
a conjecture. Shortly stated, the general principle is that the 
pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing on the one 
hand the loss to the claimants of the future pecuniary benefit 
f 
and on the other any pecuniary advantage which from whatever 
sources come to them by reason of the death, that is, the 
balance of loss and gain to a dependant by the death must be 
ascertained. 
Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd., [1942] 
A.C. 601 and Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Company 
Ltd., (1951] A.C. 601, followed. 
Where the courts below have on relevant material placed 
"m
before them ascertained the amount of damages under the head 
of pecuniary loss by the dependants of the deceased, such find-
ings cannot be disturbed· in second appeal except for compelling 
·reason. 
Held, further, that the ri

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.