The Fatal Accidents Act,1855

[Cites 16, Cited by 0]

Law Commission Report

The Fatal Accidents Act,1855

LAW COMMISSIGN OF INDIA
ORE HUNDRED ARI} EI.EVEPl'I'ﬁ REPORT
ON

THE FATAL Accmnrs Ac-r,1a55

M33'; 



Juatica K.K.Ma1;naw.

New Do1h1--11'0O01 .
Datad the 16th May. 1985.

Iaromu-dingherewiththamalhmdrodam
Elavanth Repart of the Law cunnisaim on 'The Fatal
Accident: Act, 1855".

'rho subject was taken. up by the Law Commission

mglﬂa Tlumedtortakinguptlnaubaoctia
ax $.npara'.1.'to1'theRepart.

The Cmiaslca is mama to 8111': Pd-?.Bn.kah1,
Part-tun Mmbcr and Shri s.nama1ah, Member Socretary,
for 'hair valuab assistance 11: the pmparatim at
the Report.

Yours sincerely,
. ' _. ;a .1,» I, . -1 v -
1. -'   3,4 _.-/'\a; 

1" e: '-11! "

5/ (K.I{'.'i5'I;&;)
CL»

Honeurablc Minister of Law
and Justice,
mam-

Em»  -



2.9..§.I_E.£.$..§
crmvrsa PAGE
1. nrraoaaucronr. «.3
3:1. mm Ill mamnn AND na omen cotm-nms. 9.12
:11. n'rm,sm:1~rr AND APPLICATION: sac':-ma 1. -13
Iv. rggsag §gRi ?ATIm: smcnon 1.0., 14.15
v. nnmrms ENTITLED TO commnsarxorza 15-20
szecrxon 1A, saconn pmmm.
v1. DAMAGESxsEC'rION aagmxan PARAGRAPH. 21-21+
vxx. wznoxm, as-mmanas. 25-31
vzn.  or sums: 32-.34
IX. PROCEDURE: SECTION 3. 35-37
x. Dzavxrarrxoawsssacrxon 1;. 33
xx. nmnucwzons mom muvmczss. 39-in
xxx. succassxozv CERTIFICATE. 42-44
XIII. g hNgSp fWD ON TIE 45
XIV. REVISED ACT nscommmum. 1,5

Appendix 1 1

Appendix 2 I

Appendix 3:

 *

Reoomndution in the form of a draft B111. 1.5-55 Comparative table showing section of the 5'5 exist - Act and the curves ndingi cl use in théngscoannendod draft Big. In Liat or certain statute?' provisions 'r.:,=.-(Li.'.-*" 57 for compensation on ch: . F {I Why the Act taken up-

Judicial

-criticisn.

QKAEEL I 1.1. 1111: Report 13 concerned with the centm-y--o1d Act entitled the Patel Accident: Act, 1855. The Act deal: with the recovery or dengue tor the death at 1: Detach. 00.3804 hr the "wrongful act, neglect or default" of enother person.

the subject has been taken up by the Lev Gomnieeion as e part or its ttmotion of revision of love, no use to remove injustice; certain defects in the Act have been pointed ollhhr Judicial deeleione} Deridencile have also been dieeovered in the Act on e for other matters and the need tor en over-ell review or this lot, which was passed more tow a. oentxry age, is obvhtle in tm light of the above defects and defidendeso 1.2. By ygy of example of defects in the present Act, we may rein: to the following observations made in e Kerala case?-

"The Fetal Accident: Act, pleood on the statute book as early as 1355, is a tr£t1e n m but com'-s are called upon to enforce the statute on it 13. Inner the mdien Act, which is largely modelled on the English statute of 1846, h:o.t.hn'_a__nn1_a:..:.i£.e are not entitled to rank ee "dependants, although, in England, the mother country (I neon, of the statute). by Section 2 of the Fetal Accidmts Act, 1959, bx-other, deter, mole and aunt of the deceased and the issue of such Ielativee have bet:

inducted into the area of statutory dependency. the other pl'051'OI81T0 emendmmte to the English etetute .1"

In one of the three mute we are concerned with, V12.' §.S.Ho. 22-" of 1965, plaintiffs 3, 4 and 5 are the two ﬂg have not been copied in our oountry.

lo Pita 1.2, We go P.l3.Kader Va Thetchallme, Aelene 'Ore 243e -2- of tho deceased who, under the Indian Act, are not entitled to claim compensation. Again, the Phtal Accident: Act, 1868, states that "every suoh action or suit shall be for 'In benefit or the wife, husband, parent and child, if any, of the person whose death shall have been so oeuaed, end shall be brought by and in the name of the executor, eﬂminisbretor or representativs or the person deceased".

strictly spealclng, the section visualise; some sort of a z'opresentntive action, but, where the suit in brouﬁt, not by the executor or administrator, but by some of the beneficiaries themselves, should "the suit be dismissed because the others are not on record ? met would be taking en extremely technical View and therefore an oweotion in that fore, taken in two euita where the parents ere alive, but not uploaded (nor claim made on their behalf), has been rixhtly overruled by the trial court, although thet does not mean that the plaintiffs ehould get the benefit of the compensation which should have gone to the parents had they (the parents) Ileo claimed".

Apart from the defects referred to in the Xerele Judgment cited above, many others ere revealed on a detailed ettxly of the Act. we shall deal with than in cm: comae. Before doing so, a row Horde regarding the natwre or the legislation on the subject would be u.ee1'DJ;.

eeees/' Btfe ct. of do nth on canals of action:

we asp acts.

omm n Lav ILII as to Bﬂthe .. 3 -

1.3. Legislation of the nature under oonsideration belongs prism.-11y to the realm of tort: (though not uxalusively so), and is concerned with the effect of death as oreattnx tortioue liability. Itimay be useful to point out that in the law of torts, death might operate in two ditrermt directions. Booth may axtinmnah, a cause of action; or it may gnangone. The lint aspect is concerncd with the question: "How far does a cause or action survive the death of the person wronged or the an-on;-czoa-F In Indian statute lav, tgis eubaeot is dealt with primarily in the F wcceeeion Act, which provides for the sm-vivel, on death, of most ceases of eltiou.

In relation to the second aspect of death - nunely, death on creating a cause of action -. the question to he considered is:

in the 11:9 or another so that the law gives his A cause of action on 313 death 01' ﬁlo other?" In India, this qllstion is dealt with in tho Act under discussion, that is to say, the Fatal Accidents Act.

me 'two questions mentioned above are, in essence, distinct non each other. the first question is primarily of an adjective nature, concerned as it is with the effect of death on an cxutinz cause of action. The second qvestion 1: or a. exmsionsinnatu-e, Qmcerned an 1: 15 with the creation of e n.a__na.u.u_nt__gﬁ.1an. In thozprosont etuiy, we are concerned with the second question.

"How far does one person have an interest 1.4. on this p.~::rt1oIﬂ.ar question, (whether death creates a cause of action) at common law, the death of e human being could not oreeto a canoe or action in favour of any person.

1. Section 306, main Succession Act, 19%. go 330 I130 1.10. W

3. amnv. man. (1808) 1 Clap 493; 170 ma. 1033.

History of the rule disallow-

ing recovery for fatal accident.

Gammon law rule indefenei blo.

- 4. .

This wee the position even if the deeth was the result at ﬂue law of tort: closed its boundaries when death wanted to enter it. 1.6. It wee, thta, one of the celebrated oddities of the common law that, for the wrongful killtlng or a hlnan being, the we-ongtuz act of the person causing death.

redress could not be obtained in tort. An over-statement by Lord Ellenborough is considered to have goon responsible for stopping the development of men a remedy. Thegexaot origin oi' the rule is, however, oomplex and oﬁeoure.

30 for as the person injured (end oonsequentially deed) is concerned, naturally, he could not physically smog and ms on cause of action - even if the law gave one - would not have survived at common law, 11: view or the operation or another rule, namely. that pﬁeonel aetione die with the person. But this rule, by 1tu1:, would not have prevented the recovery of mnpdlsation m dependants was the rule prohibdting award or compensation for death, which has been mentioned ebove.

1.6. The oomon law rule mentioned above, giving a wrong-deer odvil immunity 1: the injury earned death what prevented recovery by the {befoge a Jtliment was secured ), was obviously indefen- sible. It a vrongrul eat causes injury short of death, eonpensetion would be reeoveroble. If a wrongful act ceasing death is made immune from liability, the result would be that the more serious harm would remain uncompensated for, while the less serious 11% would be compensated.

1. ( ) ﬂoldswnrth "origin 1' ru], in ﬁnk}; . hggggl ' (1915) 32 .Q.l. 43.0 . V H.E.In V010 3, page Malone "Genesis of wronsfin. both" (196) 1'? sun. x'.. Rev. 14143.

Note 'I.nedequeoy or on sun; vrol'1g!'11 death and survival legislation" (1980-31) Her. Law Review 980.

3. m.|.'L1.ch Act

6.:

India: Act of LB155.

31 II:-1*)' of 1: :1 slati va )J~T0§"11{3¢

-5.-

1.7. that intolurabsliity or this position led. in England, to tho passing :3!' tbs Paial Aceidnnts Act, 1845, known also as Lord Gaupbollhs tart. Tho Act creatud a new cause at actien for the death in favotxr at the personal represuntatiua or the doceuod for the benefit of curtain designated relativgh If 2-.129:

abolished the rult in Egg! v. .

amendments and re-Inactmant of the Act in mxland spell out various details, but preserve the prinoiplc oi thus ltd? :31' ﬁsh 1.8. After the mglish Fatal acaidwtl but was ducted 1" 1845. 121: Indian legislzztari fallowazi amt in $55.

the raw. ﬁcaiaicnts Act, 1355, vlﬂdh is the subject math:

of mi: study, provides that on the death or an gonna causal by thn 'wrongful act, naglacrt or default" or amtbnr person, that personal rap:-asontativo or 1:11:

durcaud can maintaiﬂ an «nation for damxgu on banal! of the urn, husband. parent or amid of in dtalasd, it "the wrongful act, neguat or dofauzt" is such as would (if death haﬁ not lanai) haw: wtitlod tho party ingwod two ns1z§ta1n an action all 1-eonvcr damages in respect throat.

1.9.. It appears from the proocedings relating to the B111 smith led toithn Jhdiun Auk of 1855, that in 1311: beginning, the proposal was is follow! the inglish met at 1515, almost ggxhﬁjg, Tho Balsa €bm1t~toI which regretted on the B111 don nets soon to have made radi cai altorntion: 111 than 5111.

Hunter, 'the select Couamittao did make a. far 331.-311108 on matters of dutdl in the 3111. 3:22' OI-lllplly it added a praaublc to the I11 and introduced n pravision enabling the plaintiff to include a alail for the "§'h, Sunansivt ,..»..... ..

;__ azuizaz. aanidents ms, 1:345.

2. Sea amt tin Fatal Accidents M:%,1€376, uunsiuly smandud in .1982.

3. Parayaph 1.3, man.

4. Nationax Archives Pmdrl relating to 1.1:: 13 of 1855.

5. Haport or 1:11: Select committee on than Fatal Accidents 3111; 1855 0- 315- 15555 'hr: in t-ere ate '1.0.Ll.:-"- e

-6..

The Select committee also eltered the last clause of the Bill, by directing that particulars as to the nature of the clan: and as to the persons for whose benefit the slain was hrought, should be inserted in the plaint'. the Select Gaasnittee observed that this alteration had been made to accommodate the provisions to the practice of the no-russil courts. Besides maldng a ten: other verbal elterstlone, the Select Gommlttee added an interpretation clause. This clause was taken iron the British stettlte on 1346 on the subject, hm'. united the meaning of the word "parent" so as not to include a step-tether or a step-mother.

Osuse of action for wrongful death has thus been effectively provided for.

1.10. At this stage, it should be mentioned that ihen a tort eeuses death, two interests have been invaded» (1) me first is the interest ot__£hg_¢g.mggg in the security of his person and property -- an interest which has been invaded by oompelling his to endure a suffering and to submit to the loss or earnings.

If the reeoverlng or oonpensetion for lnvgelon of this interest is allowed, the amount to be A recovered should really be an esset or the estate. It is to be calculated on the her: caused m__tn_ ds.nn.ea.e.sl.-

(11) The second interest invaded is that or mnlmm n£..Qu.ﬂema.IIﬂ. -

expeotetlon; their anticipation of sherinl in the prospective earnings or the viet-1011 is necessarily an interest in the nature of an

1. See Note in (1915) 3 Harvard Law Pee. B02.

hlomioua Iort.

-7-

doatroyed by the tomination of the life of the victim itself, tho anount to be reoovured under this head is not an asset of the estate.

Interest of the first type can be protected only if there is provision 1'01' survival of the cause of action which had accrued to the doooasod 'aurora his deathol A statute in the nature of Fatal Agcidonta Act would protect only tho second type of interest.

1.11. It is also appropriate to mention that at common law, thgrq was mother ruze which prevented recover: for a r -- a rule not oonfinod to a tort causing dc 'an. 21:. classic formulation at the 1-us... is contaigad in tho Judpont or Phillimore L.R. in Saijih V. Elma, trot which the following passage is talism-

"It is a V011-established rule of lat! that a plaintiff against whom a felony has been oommittd by the dcrondant. cannot make that rolony the tomdation or A cause of ad!'-ion unless the defendant ha: bun prosecuted or a reasonable excuse has been iqhown for his not having been prosecuted."

It may on montionad that in England, the ruin of the common law montionod above has' been aboiiahed by statuiof Tho rule has been abolished by expresa provision in many:

other gaunt:-iaa alto. mus, tho; provision in Gmoda on the aubJoat is in tho following form-

"No civil remedy for any act or omission shall' be suspended, or any proceedings taken in connection therewith istayod, by reason only of tm tact that such acts 0!' omission constitute; a :£Q1ony.' \' 1, 3.; Note in (1915) 28 Harvard Law Rev. 902.

2. See also paragraph 1.3. aunts.

3. mmv. mm (1914) 3 K-5» 98. 106 <¢-A->-

4. Panama, "Fa3.on1ous Tort Rule' (1965) 33 A11a%.L.J?_ol64o

5. 300t10n 1, 15%" Aﬁtg (Eng. )0'

6. Sﬁdticn 13' cOd.o -8- mrtxuu; Pgpor. 1.12. In order to facilitate consideration of the subject, the Gommission had prepared a working papcr containing the tentative proposals of the commission, 1 for eliciting the apinions of interested persons and bodies on the su.b3'e-at. The aommonts reoaivod on tlu working paper will be dealt with, at the appropriate place, in this Report?

10 LIV 60-"'im18810n 1110 N00 F0 Lac:

Vapor on Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (ignugry 1935) , 3- Ghavi'-«IE4 ma.

R otorns in iu(,1.md.

loan uncut fa nuts I of mu pc a;1t1oD 111 Ian and.

a 9 -

CHAPTFQ II the Indian Act is mainly modelled on the English However, in England,

2.].-

Act 0!' 1846, as stated above. several improvements have been made in tho law on the subaact.

um~.11 1976, the statutary pi'OV1s1one had to no collected The process of reform has bean gradual.

from scattered enactments passed from him: to time to reform the law. In 1976, the law was consolidated as the Fatal Ilccidents Act, 1976. In 1982, the first four soctions of the Arst or 1976 were replaced by new sections substituted by the Administration of Justice Act. 1982 ('3.53). As a result, one has now to read both the Act cf 1976 and tho Act of 1.982, for ascertaining the English law on the subje 31:.

2.2. Attention may be usefully drawn to a. for salient fcatures of tin: legislative developments in England -

(a) vlbare the defendant': tort has caused the death 01' the deceased by wronﬁul act, neglect or default, the Fatal Accidents Act, compels the defendant to oolnpcnsato tho specified dependants, for their loss of support from the deceased, provided that the deceased (if he had survived) would himself have been able to an: they defendant.

(1)) The oxacutor or administrator of the deccasod brings the action, but holds the damages recovered on behalf of the depondmta. Any dependant entitled under the Act may bring proceedings in his own man, 11' the executor or administrator has not started proceedings withm six months of the death of that deceased.

0OHtdo...o.l0/0

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f) (:3 1m mifmnoys are not diminished by death duties or by the claims of the deceased': creditors, because they do not pass into the deceased': estate.

The "dependants" entitled under the Acts are the spouse, ex-spouse, children or other descendants, step-children, parents, step-parents or other aecendante, brothers, sisters, aunts or uncles and Gertein deducte-

relations are also recognised.

issues of aunts and uncles.

Any of these relationships can «arise by adoption, or by marriage Clfrinity") end the 1-elationehip may be illegitimate or of the 11:31!-blood. (Relatives of the "halt-blood" are persons related by virtue of e common ancestor, but descended tron different spouses of that ancestor }.

The measure of damages in such a cause is the extent of the dapandsnce of the relstivqmultiplied by the likely period of its time of continuance. Benefits accruing to the relative as a result or the death of the deceased are not to be taken into account in the assessment or damages.

A defendant must not be made to pay damages twice over in respect of the cane wrong. Hence, when the executor sues the defendant both tmder the Law Reform etc. Act, 1934, and tmdsr the Fatal Accidents Act, the damages awarded under such Act are celoulsted with reference to those awarded under the other ActJ':, so that the total award involves no duplication.

1. ﬁp_gg_V. B1m.(19a7) ..c. 826; (1937) 3 All. M1. 359 (H.L.).

eugrum not " me I-aw 1m other Govuenom-wealth morllntri one .

Mention in U.~B.A. 111;

74.3. By the Administration of Justice Act of 1982, recently enacted in Bnxlendi sections 1 to 4 of the Act or 1976 have bed: been replaced by revised sections.

In the oourse of this revision, some important edditione have also been made. Provision has now been made for treating what may be called a 1;, tagtgvife as e "dependant" for the purposes of the Act. A right has also been given to the m to rank as a dependent. The earlier provision that insurance and other benefits which accrue to the dependent: are to be disregarded has now been made comprehensive. In effect, the court is barred from taking into account (by way of deduction) 33; benefit which accrues to a dependant on death. certain other changes have also been made to enhance the eocinl Justice aspect of the legislation.

An attempt has also been made to remove certain anomalies arising from the co-existence or a claim under the Act and a claim for shortened expectation of life. Provieion has also been made to allow damages for bereavement an idea probably inspired by the Scottish Lanna 2.4. The law on the subject in most Commonwealth countries has allo been modelled mainly on the English pattern.

2.5. In the United States, the statute law in the majority of the States provides for compensation for death, substantially on the acne lines as the English Act.

phraeeology differs, but the substance in the ewe.

1. The ﬂministraﬂon of Justice Act, 1982 (Eng.), 2e SO. 2e?' mm;

3. Note in (1961-5) 1? Stanford Law Review, pages 1064-1055.

can-mm: em Luv " to Qnmm C-

Qlvﬂl Luv en-mitten.

2.6. in Scotland also, ddnages are allowed to the bereaved family for solatnn, as well as for loss of supper': Lord Watson has observed that the action for solatiue and damage: had been allowed to 1:1; spouse, parent or child for a century in Scotland. It has already been mentioned that the mglieh Act,3ae amended in 1982, now allows damages for bereavement.

2.7. In modern civil law Jun-isdictione, such as France, wh ae law has been greatly inﬂuenced by the Roman Law, the courts have, since the beginning, encountered little difficulty in awarding damages to the renal:

of the deceased victim for both pectgiary and non-pecuniary louse from his death.

1. Note in (1966-65) Vol. 17 Stanford Law Review, pages 1054-1055.

9.. <2:La::ks. v. Gaz£1xL£e.a1..£a.. (1891) 45.0. 4.12, 418 (H.L.).

3. Paragraph 2.3, mung, 4- "etc in (1964-6) Vol. 1? Stanford Law Review, p age 5 1054-1055.

hum l.l.o»n 1 .

'-tlmcom t anu Au>u»'...l 0 ation-

rvummnu endan-

'H10!!! I 3.1. we can now take up examination of the Fatal Accidents Act. 1855, section by section.

3.2. Section 1 of the Act deals with the (territorial) extent of the Act. On this particular point, no change is needed. But if the present Act is to be replaced by a new Act, (as is going to be our recommendatioﬁﬁ it will be proper to insert, in the new Act, a provision that its provisions will not apply retrospectively.' It is better to avoid controversies on the subject. That particular qualification can be inserted in section 1, and also in the repeal c1ause.2 we recommend accordingly. Incidentally, the present title "Fatal Accidents"

is not appropriate. and should be replaced by the more appropriate words "wrongful death".

1. See Apnendix 1, clause 1(3).

2. Appendix 1, clause 14(2).

'rnlﬁmm 'H f': T""t 'ur'u|man;h .

lw'* Qummd om t | mm. 1 n I n 'L "1- ttLihg 1' Olﬂ 0 CHAkTﬁR ' 0 3 W' 4.1. Section 1A is the principal operative section in the Act, and enables a suit to he filed for loss accasioneo by death. The sni' can be filed by the specified relatives. Thepe are also a few other matters of detail, lealt with in the section. It will be convenient to deal with the various paragraphn of the section one by one.

The first paragraph of section 1 enacts on under :-

"1A. Vhenever the death of a person ahall be caused by wrongful act, neglect or default, and the act, neglect o~ default is such as would (if death hd not ensued) have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the party who would have been liable ii death had not ensued shall be liahln to an action or suit for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured, and although the death shall have been caused under such circumstances as amount in law to felony or other crime".

4.2. with reference to the first paragraph. it is to be noted that two conditions are necessary before the suit CL! no maintained under the section I-

1) the death must have been "caused by wrongful act, neglect or default"; and

11) the act, neglect or dafault must be such as would (if death had not ensued) have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof.

These conditions, when read together, postulate that, but for the rule prohibiting recovery for death, the act which caused the death would have been actionable. The right of action under the section, however. is a new one, and not a ourvival of the cause of action of the deceased. It is "derivative". only to the extent that the condition:

precedent applicable to the deceased must exist.' Williams, "Some Reforms in the Law of Torté"

1 0 59 (1961) 24 Modern L.R. 100, 106.

nf Rwuml -

nun»:

"I.I' I gmmmrcllnn ﬂmﬁt.

mumnuttrn.

.Imrbni uh.un.a4-ma. Ln Imctkun 1A.

first pere-

ﬂPIph -

luoocoovmmmnuv «I a 2 1 arm! .

4.3. AS to the words "wrongful act, neglect or default"

1: may be staied that in most cases uder the Act, the of action is in tort. In England, it has been held 3 'L'_1»'-'C3 (with reference to the Act of 1946) that breach of con- tract will suffice.' The language of the English prov1- aionz and the Indian provision being aubatantially the 5 me in this respect, our courts may be expected to take the rule in tne same view on the above point. In fact, baker v. Bo n (which the Fatal Accidents Act is intended tc supersede? itself did not apply to breach 5: contract'.

4.4. In an Australian case arising under substantially similar legislation, a mother recovered for the death of her con who was electrocuted by a defective light bulb nurchased by him from defenﬂanta. Negligence on the part or the retailers could not be established. but there was breach of implied warranty of fitneaa which could have conferred a right of action on the deceased.5 4.5. As to 'the nature of the connection between the wvongful conduct relied on anc the death caused thereby it has been held that the wrongful conduct need not be the direct or sole cause of death, but it. must be one of 1:} effective causes leading tn the death.5 4.6. No changes of substance are called for in the first paragraph of section 1A. A few verbal changes, however.

are required. Having regard to current usage u 1} the word "action" should be replaced by ﬁne word "suit ",' and the worda "felony or other crime" should be replaced by the word "offence".

we recomend accordingly.

Cértain other minor verbal improvements, based mainly on section 1(1) of the (ﬁnglieh) Fatal Accidents Act. 1976 These will be apparent from the draft

11) are also desirable.

B111 recommended in an Appendix to the Rcport.

1. ggggg v. 1936) 2 All E.R. 1258.

irw ~: 3%}.

2. See now see ion '($5. Act 0 976.

3. bPa3'agra.ph$ 1,3 and 1-7; 5' 1

4. grgst v. id cbur a1 ' V0 .(1915) 1 K-B- 509-

5. woolworthe v. ggggﬁy. 942 65 c.n.n. 603 (High our of uRJra}i o a 1 v_'Bhﬂnxani_Dgv1,

6. Governor-General of In 13 in M0" 9 ACIIR-O A110 14' 4'80 .mmrm\wn iﬁ, Immmmd px'°~ mrmmh -

IUILILXVFW mmmtllmu to ummmqmmno Quum.

«alntLven mwt.ti9C Ia :ompen~ In 3. '.L'I"I". n 111ogLtimate um: adopted mulicren -

puuxiion in !71'\./'_ Nd 0 E§£2E§_! it ~. ' -2:; cw '1"I:5;"J; J z ' L T s.-3 en 3 r .

5.1. The second paragraph of section 1A of ﬁne Act of 1855 is as follows :

"Every such action or edit ahall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, Parent and child, if any, of the person whose death shall have been so caused, and shall be brought by and in th« name of the execuﬁor, adminis- trator or representative of the person deoeaaed."

This paragraph, thus, deals with two mattersu

1) the relatives entitled to compensation, - which ir a substantive matter; and

ii) the form of the action, - which is a procedural one.

542. As to tho first matter (relatives entitled to§compenBat1on), the provision at present is limited to the wife, husband, parent and child. g;ggg.j§g;g, this seems to be too narrow a circle. In this context, it should be noted that the category of relatives has been expanded in England.

1 it includes --

As the law in England now stands,

(a) the wife, huaband,2 parent and chi1d;3

(b) any person who is, or who is the issue of, A brother, sister, uncle or aunt of the deceased person?

(The expreusione "parent" and "child" are defined in a wide manner, both in England and in lndi3)o 5.3. Illegitimate dopendantw and step-children of 'the several categories are also included in England.

1. Fatal Accidents Act, 1976 (English).

2. L30 a divorced epouees eee pawagraph 5.7. ;§fra. 3, Sgnti)L 1(§),Pata1 Acridentﬂ get, 1976(Eng1ish).

4, section 1(j/;),Fata1_ Accidents Act, 1976(Englieh).

warm 5.}.

«mutt.

mwopm of ruiut1ve9 Imt'.".L8d to :ompon~ In1'::'*. -

prcpoemi for oltmnaion.

.. _]_7 _ adopted children are included in England by a general enactment. Brietiy stated, the position under that enactment is that an adopted child shall be treated.

in law, as if he had been born as a child of the marriage.1 5.4g (a) It may be noted that in India, sietora and brothers are recognized dependants under the vorkmen's 3 Uomponaation Act2 and also under the Railways Act. In our view, the wider um: of relatives' adopted in England is auitablo for India also. In tho context of the Fatal Accidents Act. uncles and aunts, brothers and sisters, and their issues should be included.

(b) In fact, havin~ regara to Indian continents, there coald be scope even for including a widowed daughter-in-law living with the deceased. Cases are not uncommon where the widowed daughtar--1n-law, not having an inflepenﬂent source of income, was economi- cally dependent on the father-in--1aw who had died as a result of the injury. Even in England,5 the inclusion of tho widowed daughter-in-lav and mother- in--law had been suggested in the debate on legislation proposed on the subject, though the suggestion does not seem to have been ir:.plemmtod.. Inclusion of the widowed daughteruin-law within the category of persons a entitled to compensation would be eminently doairable in Indian conditions. The same logic applies to a deceased brother's widow. Tne list ehould, therefore, be expanded to cover these two relatives 81509 19 First Schedule. paragraph 3, Children Act, 1975 (0.72) (English)-

2. bection 4(1) and 8&5). iorkmen's Oonponsation Act, 1925.

3. section 82A, Indiian Railways Act, 1890. 4'. Paragraph 5.2, aggro...

5. See H.L. Debates, Vol. 216, col. 1079-1080.

|mL.nt .rn>." in On manh-

'I"o pl!) B311 .

5.5. On the basis of the above discussion. the following relatives should be covered tor ﬁne purposes of section 1A, second paragraphs'

(a) wife or husband.2

(b) child? including stepachild, adopted child,4 and illegitimate ch11a5 and zrsndochildren or persons of like description.6

(d) brother,7 including that by half-blood or uterine blood, and his issue.

(e) s1ster,8 including that by ha1f~b1ood or uterine E1001, and her issue, 9

(f) aunts and uncles and their issues,

(g) widowed daughter-in-1aw.'°

(h) widow of brother.11 5.6. it is also proper that persons in the womb at the time of death should also be covered. if subsequently born u11vea12

1. See Aypendix 1, clauses 4(1) and 4(3). . as to divorced spouses, see paragraph 5.1, ;gfr§.

. "he paraﬁraph 10.6 1 ire and Appendix 1 Clauses 2(1) and 2?é5. '

4. see paragraph 10.1, ;g;g§ and Appendix 1, C1ause$2(?

. see Appendix 1, clause 2(2) and paragraph 10.4(i), fra.

6. see paragraph 10.4(ii), gnfrg.

7. Hes paragraph 5.4(a), sgggg.

8. See paragraph §.4(a), sgpra.

9. See paragraph 5.4(a), ggggg.

10. Paraaragh 5.4(b), sag; .

11. Paragraph 5.4(b), ggggg.

12. See A pendix 1, clause 2(5), Compare section 99(lx , Indian Succession Act, 1925.

'J F:

,mUnmvwnd Igmmsms -

pﬂupmm ~ L .

,;t in the '2 '10 Of v'n execu-

tor, mimi-

".;L.' t'."'1tOI' repre-

~~nt2tive.

5.7. while ﬁealinr with the queation of persons who should be entitled to rank as beneficiaries, some comments era in order an to divorced spousea. In England, the expreﬁsion "wife" as occurring in ﬁne ratel Accidents legislation wee judicially construed in 1982, as not including a divorced wife.' However, tne law was amended. Tection 1(3)(&) and section 1(4), Fatal A cidenta Act, 1976 £33 amended by section 3 of the Administration of Justice Act, 1982) provide that the expression "dependant" means. gggggqgﬁgg. the wife or husband or gogger wife gr ggsbang gf ggg deceased. it is also mane clear that the reference to the "former wife or husband" of the deceased includea a reference to Q person whoae marrimte to the deceased has been annulled ov ﬁeclared void, an well an a person whose murPia"n has baen disrolved.

on merits, this is a good provision, On the passing 0* a decree o 'divorce or nullity of marriage, the court generally orders a spouse to make to the other spouse, periodical yaymenta by way of maintenance. If the spouse so ordered to pay maintenance dies, liability Should survive against the estate of the deceased. put in India, this has now been achieved judicially. Hence no ﬁtatutory provision is needed.2 5.3. This dispuﬁeﬁ of one point concerning the second part of Section 1A, second paragraph of the existing Act. That paragraph further provides that the auit shall be brought by, anﬁ in the name of, the executor, adminietraﬁor or representative of the person deqpaaed.

tion Co, ?~ Pgggg C%l1ins V. Ta"lor we draw Co Btruc _~YLLQ' 1 Tggﬁg 990 20 Va DOTO §h§?3.. -'Ru {0f~O Sect Omit L;

humof1mL»-

'Lml o '|V1npooII '| 1.

Uowuamt "NWO mu» nzr t-

mrupmoml.

The exprension "representative" in thie context meano the "ife, husband or parent or child,' - i.e. the person entitled at present to tho benefits of the Act. It is well understood that the claim made by the repreeentativc iv e eentially a claim on behalf of all the defendanta.2 Further, even if one of the dependants does not put in a claim, that uoes not deprive the othera of their right to compenaation.3 The suit is for the benefit of all. The relief in given not to a class, but to individunl334 5.9. It may be noted that the Engliah Act5 expressly allows a suit by the beneficiaries, if the executor or administrator does not bring an action within the specified provision. There ahould be a similar provi-

sion in the Indian Act. its utility is obv1ouo.6 5.10. Another point requires consideration in the interests of speedy disposal. If the defendant is advised to pay money into court, it should suffice that he pays it as one sun, which is intended to cover the compensation payable to all ggragge, without specifying the shares of the relatives. Snot a provision should be inserted in our Act, so that the defendant payinﬂ into court is not bothered with the subsequent stages of the trial which would be concerned only with the epportionmont of compesetion - a matter in which the defendant would have no interest.7 'a 9 t K ari V0 11 t 0 ' 3U G 0; Ao."Lo.Ro gal. 19%, 199, paragrap rev ewe canes). T 5

2. ﬁx, 2 in gr-.?3§g v. gguvraga, A.I.R. 1966 Punjab '?

9 0 '0 0

3. (1970) 82 Pun3.L.1--:.42.45. noted in the Yearly: Digea-1

4. Cone rd I d 9. surance O . v. .

A.I.R. Ker. . O, paragrap .

5. Section 2(2). Fatal Accidenta Act, 1976 (English).

6. See Appendix 1, clause 4(2).

7. See Appendix 1, Clause 9.

mum M .

my': pawn-

lllh Human' 'L0 Q! mm bl-[101 are ﬁn hm pro-

ymri: 1 mmm'. .

A4,, "' CHAEQQE E;

DAMAGES; SECT;Oﬂ 1A. THERD Pﬁﬁéﬁﬁgﬁﬂg 6.1. we can now come to the question or damages. The third paragraph of section 1A of the Act of 1855 reads as under :-

"and in every such action the court may give such damages as it may think proportioned to the loss resulting from snow death to the parties respecti- vely, for whom and for whose benefit such action shall be brought, and the amounts recovered, after deducting all costs and expenses, including the costs not recovered from the defendant, shall be divided amongst the before-mentioned parties, or any of them. in such shares as the Court by the Judgement or decree shall direct."

6.2. It will be noticed that under sectio 1A, third paragreph,1 damages are to be proportioned to the "loss resulting from death to the parties respectively", for whom and for whose benefit the action shall be brought. The nature of the 'loss' to be compensated is not described in the above provision (nor in the correspon- ding provision in the English Act). The question, therefore, naturally arises, a what is the nature of the loss to be compensated? The answer to this queetior depends on the view which one takes with reference to a deeper question, namely, what ought to be the conceptioz of the law as regards the interests of the dependants?

Having laiﬁ down that survivors interested in a man's life should be compensated for the injury which they sustain from the wrongful act causing his death, the law must also answer the question - in respect of which interests (of the dependants) ought the compen-

sation to be provided?

1. Paragraph 6.1, gyggg.

ummp;b1e 6.3. The interest of the survivor in the continuance of Itmd Lh-

umng;b1e the life of the person dying may be ggtggigi, or intgggipig, uwtcrests.

or both. A material interest consists in (i) the present enjoyment of the pecuniary benefits or material advantages having a value in money, which are brought to an end by the death of the person dying, or (ii) in a reasonable expectation of the enjoyment of such benefits or advantages.

An intangible interest in the continuance of life consists in the natural ties of relationship or close asso- ciation with a particular person and the moral comfort and companionship arising thereout.1 If cmpenaation is to be meecured with reference to the interest affected, an is to be fair and Just compensation in money for the destru- ction of that interest, then it should include tompensation for the intangible interest as well as for a tangible interest. It should include a solatiu a1so.2 Mwmphﬂdl 6.4. Having taken these aspects into consideration, we I ..c Eaves recommend that section 'IA, third paragraph, should be 1 nr 1055.

I widened so as to covere damages for loss of the nature indicated above.3'a Incidentally, it may be mentioned here that in England, by a recent amendment of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1976, provision has been made allowing the parents and spouse of the deceased to claim compensation, specifically for "bereavement", subject to a maximum.5

1. Owen Dixon, "Survival of Causes of Action" (1948) 1 Univ., Queensland L.J. 1, reproduced in The Jesting Pilate, 238, 2&3.

2. Owen Dixon, "Survival of Causes of Action" (148) 1 Univ. Queensland L.J. 1, reproduced in the Jesting Pilate , 238. 243.

3. Paragraph 6.3, u re

4. Appendix 1, clause 6(4).

5. Section 1A, Fatal Accidents Act, 1976, as amended in 1982.

Mn w.b.

'ﬁnd .

HWJITIF M third uNmr.ph.

but I' :1 .|HVlf'.;H ' 3 b bu uj ullﬁd , The common law did not allow damages for bereavement.1 6.5. Another point concerning section 1A, third paragraph,2 may be mentioned at this stage. In our view, a specific provision to the effect that the damage: should be propor- tionate to the injury is needed, and the present provision may, therefore, be retained. However, we recommend in this paragragh certain verbal improvements and additions which will be apparent from the draft appended.at the end of this Heport.3 6.6. It is also necessary to make an express provision as J funeral expenses.h In a Kerala case,5 the following observations occur on the subjects» "Another head of compensatory damages, that may fall within the scope of section 1-A, is the expenditure that the relatives have met for the medical treatment and the funeral of the deceased.

"(7) The heads of damages recoverable uder section 2 are:

1) Pain and suffering undergone by the deceased;

ii) Loss of expectation of life:

iii) Loss of earnings and profits upto the date oi death (but not of future earnings):

iv) Medical and hospital expenses, if incurred;

v) Funeral expenses, where they have been paid out f the estate of the deceased."

In our view, it would be desirable to make an express provision for funeral expenses.

1. Salmond and ﬁeuston, Torts (1981), page she, and cases cited therein.

2. Paragraph 6.1, ggggg'

3. See Appendix 1, clause 6(1).

A. Appendix 1, clause 6(3).

5. Conggrd of gndia v. Su I e , A.I.R. 1964 Ker. , , paragraph 7 Eﬁenon E53 Madnavan Nair, JJ. -

judgement by Madﬁﬁan Nair, J.).

:E::"Ei°"' 6.7. we recommend that a provision as to the ::$??§°n' apportionment of compensation awarded may also be usefully included, somewhat on the following 11nes:-

"(1) Whoge gge cgggeggagggg ha; 39; pggg o§herw;sg agportggggg, gag Cong; gay agpgrt;gg ;t amopg xﬁe persons en§;t;gg, (2) The Cour; may in gt; dgggggpggn gggﬁgong ghe dgstrggugggg 0; gggeg 39 wn;gg g;norg agg ent ma direc a ant r undivided fq§§."1

1. Appendix 1, clause 10.

The question r 3 conside-

r tion.

Position where wiiow has re-married.

Prospects of xoqnarriage 0 'aJid0WQ CHAPTER !;;

dIDOW'S RE-MARRIQ§§ 7.1. In regard to the persons entitled to compensation and the possible bars to their right to recovery, one question that needs consideration is the position of the widow who reumarries. The precise questions that have arisen in this context are :- '

3) Is the widow who has re-married entitled to compensation?

11) Is the widow who has not yet re-married, but who has a prospect of re-marriage, entitled to cmpensation?

It will be convenient to deal with the position aepara.oly with reference to each of the two situations enuerated above.

7.2. Where the widow has already reumarried by the time the claim petition comes to be determined, her dependency on the estate of the deceased may, for all Pkactical purposes, be said to have come to an end. On this reasoning, the Allahabad High Court has held that the wdaw who has re-married is not entitled to compenaoticn.1 7.3. Where, however, the widow has not yet reqnarried and the question to be considered is as to the effect or the grgsgggg of her re-marriage, the question is not easy of solution. Fir any court, it is difficult to assess satisfactorily whether, and if so. when and with whom, the widow has a "prospect" of re-marriage. A case from Karnataka illustrates the very delicate task which the court

1. Orientgﬁ Fire & Go eral In urance C Ltd. v. an rewaﬁi, K.¥.§. 1§83 311, 17%, 778, paragraph; 10 and 11.

Para 703:

contd.

tﬂmment km .. Jelhi mnxsre.

must perform, when the court comes to be faced with the question of assessing the prospect of re-marriage of a widow.1 The claimant in that case was a Huslim widow. when she was cross-examined before the Claims lribunal constituted urder the Motor Vehicles Act, her age was 21 years and she clearly denied that she had any intention of re-marrying. Nothwithstanding her denial, the Claims Tribunal, after considering what (in its opinion) were "real and imminent" prospects of her reqmarriage, quantified the compensation to be awarded tqher on the basis of only five years' purchase value. On appeal, the High Court held this to be a wrong approach. The High Court stated thrt it was true that in the case of Muslim claimants, their personal law treats marriage as a civil contract and the re-marriage of a widow does not attract any social ostracism. Even so, according to the High Court, a higher standard of re-assurance as to the reality of the prospects of such reqmarriage and of its beneficial economic reper- cussions on the dependant widow was necessary, before her prospects of reqnarriage could be taken into account in fixing the amount of compensation. That was lacking in this case, according to the High Court.

7.4. The point has arisen before the Delhi High Court also. Commenting on the difficulty of determining the question of prospects of re-marriage, the Delhi High Court observed as under in a judgement reported in 1976 :-

' . the possibility of the re-marriage of the widow claimant must continue to hold the centre of the stage in India. The judges will continue to be engaged in the guessing game of sizing up the claimant': chances of finding a new husband and bringing the dependency to an end.2 nta Fir & O C D

1. Ra ab V. Th v al In ance C arn. in.

-2. Jaggal Sing? V. Jagaga Deg}, A.I.h. 1976 Delhi 127,131 English Law.

7.5. In this context, it may be useful to note that in England, previously the prospect of re-marriage of a widow was considered to be a relevant considerction for assessing the quantum of damages payable to her on the ceath of her husband. The question wbpther the wadow, an re-marriage, forfeits th: right tc claim damages arose before the Hocse of Lords in an interestin, case. The judgement contains certain strong arguments against considering ﬁ.n prospects of re~marriage as relevant tc the assessment of damages to be granted to the widow.1 Lora aiplock pointed out that the prospects of marriase might themselves be affected by the amount of the award of damages, so that the larger the damages for the lost depenency, the better would be the widow's chance of obtaining another husband.

as has been pointed out by a learned writer,2 it was not necessary for the House of Lords to consider what will be the measure of damages for the lost dependency, if the widow had reﬁmarried after the husband's death but before final award of damages. But he points nut ~ "It is of interest. however, that twice in his speech Lord Diplock

2. R.V. Baker, Note (1969) £35 L.Q.R. 305, 306.

Paragraph 7.5. contd.

pointed out that amount of the dependency should be estimated 'at the date of his (the husband's) death'. If the widow marries again after her husband'; ieatn, ought the compen- sation that became payable on his death he reduced because of a subsequent evenisuch as her re-marriage? The widcw's expectation of life will, of course, be taken into considera- tion ir calculating the amount of the payment which she is entiflwd to receive, but her re-marriage might be regarded as an independent act arising after her right has vested in her.

If there it evidence that she has refused an offer of marriage, can this be used to reduce her claim ta dependency on the ground that it was her duty to take reasonable steps to limit her loss? Again, if a widow who has read the Law Repcrts realises the: financially it may be better for her to live in sin than to get married before she has received her dependency payment, ought the law to encourage her to do so? 01 course, if the dependency payments were an annual payment to be made only until re-marriage, than the answer would be a simple one, but 1f 1: 15 a lump su that becomes payable on her husband's death, than she ought to be entitled to it in full, even though thereafter she takes the independent 5t9P Of Eﬁttiﬁﬂ P9-married before the am has been amid ta her, "A final point may be of interest. If the widow has suffered a severe accident to her face bet-

ween the time of her husband's death and the 00000.

arm in Land.

Imaent rmviaion | .-mgland .

"calculations made at the trial regarding her dependency, will the damages be substantially increased became: her chances of ro--marriage have lessened during the interval?"

7.6. The problem was solved in England by intervention of the Legislature, which enacted the Law Reform (Miscella- neous Provisions) Act. 1971. Section 4(1) of the Act' provided that "in assessing damages payable to a uidow.... there shall not be taken into account re-marriage of the widow or prospects of her re-marriage'.

7.7. The provision has been re~enactod in the Fatal Acc-denta Act, 1976. The present provioion in England on the subject is in the following terms, as contained in the Fatal Accidents Act2:-

"(3) In an action under this Act where there fall to be assessed damage: payable to a widow in respect cf the death of her husband, there shall not be taken into account the re-marriage of the widow or her prospects of ro--marriage.' This provision settles the matter. It is, however, possible to say that the English provision goes too far in disregarding even actual re-marriage of the widow}.

This proviaion was, as stated above, first inserted in England in 1971, in view of certain judicial daciaionas which had pointed out that it would be very difficult for a court to embark upon an inquiry as to how for a parti-

cular widow has "prospects" of re--marriage.

¢nuc--.o..--..--¢-----.-._..¢....---.--- --. ..

conuuuuu ca-q--on-.a--¢¢~c

1. Section 4(1). Lari ﬁafonn (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. 1971 (Eng.). 'bee now section 3(3), Fatal Accidents Act, 1976, as amenad in 1982.

2. Section 3(3), Fatal Accidents Act, 1975, as amended in 1982.

3. See paragraphs 7.9 and 7.11 infra.

4. Section 4(1). Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1971, replaced by section 3(2), 1976 Act, again replaced in 3982.

5. Buckley 17.. Allan, (1967)IAl1 E-.11. % 5'3'?

ate in r H 01189 Lords.

riticiam M' the mg]. 18h sct.

.. 30 ....

7.8. It my be mentioned that when the Law Reform (niece- llanaous Provisions) Bill (as intruducad) was under debate in the Bouae of Lords, very strong views were expressed against treating the graapecta of re-marriage as relevant to the aaaeaamcnt of compensation. The Bill as it then stood preaumabaly allowed the court to take into account her 2333;; re-marr1ag_.

Baroness Summarskill. and it may be of interest to quote The most vociferous objection was that of one passage from her speech.' -

"Finally, I say that it is lamentable that noble Lord:

by this Amendment should seem to perpetuate in our courts this crude assessment of the value of a woman. oblivious to Again, I should like to emphasise that the widow should be regarded the mental stress to which she is subjected.

as having been the working partner of her late husband for whom she has worked in the home, renrad the children and has thus enabled him to earn his wage or salary and to improve his skills. As I said on ﬁecond Reading, that was just one phase of her life, a phase which has haé a tragic ending. Her financial compensation should bear no kelation ship to the next phase, whether she marries or remains aingle."

7.9. It is obvious that theta is need for reform of the law in India. At the same time, it should be pointed out that the English Actz sees to have gone too far in exclud-

ing. from consideration. not merely the prospect of re- marriage, but also the actual re--marr1age of the w1dow.3 E0 prohibit the court from such an inqulry is to disregard realities. In fact, even in England. the provision as enacted has not been welcomed by everyone. It has been ¢-u.---ym--»a..a.-.-nu-------4..u--can.-un.-nu.-n'-- ...._..

1. Baronnesa Summerakill in (1971) Vol. 318, House of Lords Debates, col. 539~5£0 (6th May, 1971).

2. ﬁection 3(5), Fatal Accidents Act. 1976, as amended in 1982.

3. See paragraph 7.7, augr .

criticised by the English Law Commission. as 3180 by the Pearson Commission on Poraonal Injury.

;mond'a 7.10. The editors of the latest edition of ﬁalmond on 'W. Torts record their views as under}:-

"Th1a legislation shows that change is not equivalent to reform; it has led to gross injuatice, not least in that the court may be ob;;ggd to d1areg§gg_a v1ta;_;act which has happened, namely, the g;§ow'a re-marrgggp to a gggltgg gggggd gg§bagQ."4 umm1B8i0n'B 7.11. In our opinion. the English provision relating to Law as to 5 he re-- re-marriage (which we have quoted above ) is partly good, nrrying Ldow. and partly bad. In so far as it requires the court to dia-

regard the prospects of the marriage, it is good, as it savea the court from the task of embarking upon an aimless inquiry, However, in so far as it requires the court to disregard even the actual re-marriage of the widow. it does not appear to be a sound one. After re-marriage (assuming that re--marriage takes place before the trial of the claim concludes), the court knows that the woman will réceivo support from some other source. The court should not be required to disregard that reality.

£acommenda- 7.12. In the light of the above'd1scussion. our recommenda- tion re---

ﬁnding re- tion is that the court need not assess the prospects of re- marriage ur widow. marriage of the widow, but, at the aame time, the court must take into account the actual re-marriage of the w1dow.6

--qn¢--ua----q--4--.._»q---g-c-.--uau-a-on-.:u---- -.--- ....

1. Law Commission of England, Report on Personal Inaury Litigation (Law Com. No. 56).

2. Pearson Commission (hoyal Commission on Civil Liabili- ties and Compensation for Personal Injuries) Report (1978) Gmd. 7054. para 411.

3. Salmond and Houston. Torts (1981), page 548 (edited by Heuston and Chambers) .

4. §ee also Atiyah, ﬁccidentB,C0mpensation and the Law gﬁrd ed.) page 184.

5. Paragraph 7.7. augra.

6. See tppendix 1. clause 6(2).

Lotion 2 ~ lrsb part.

auction 2, firnt part --

looomnIndu-

axon for minor rarbnl omnngou.

uﬂution 2.

Iooond part minor verbal change ﬂl!Id.d o $HUUﬂ$§_llll nnmtnm1n_qz.§_umu__u.;~9.u' um 8.1. "C no" vrvcﬁod to A consideration or section 2 or the lot. Curiously, tho section begins with the words *Prov1dad _ E! that". The nanhion really oonninta of two parts. Th. firgt part ronnnz " 9- u.v.¢_sa.¢2§.2..EhM1.m:.q.v1LJss.h:_.t;r2J)xM- _ ( . ) Providod always that no more than ono nation or unit nhull he brought for, and in runpnnt of tho Inmo uubjnut~muttor of complaint".

The nocond part of the section roads:

"Prov1dod that. in any ouch action or nuit, the executor. ndminiutrntor or roprancmtntivo of tho dooanuad may tnnort a claim for and rccovor any pecuniary loan to the estate of the doootuud occasioned by much wrongful not. nogllnt or default. which gum. when roooverod. shall be doomed part of tho nnnotn of tho oatnto of tho dooonnod."

8.2. The first puma' or the notion in nmnaod to prohibit a multiplicity or notions. and roquirno no changes of sub-

otnnou. ﬂvt a row minor verbal ohungau are nooonnnry in order to bring tho tnngungo in Ilnn with modorn loqnl usage. Those V111 bu appnrnnt from tho drntt which no urn appending to thin Roporb.2

0.}. Th! nnownd putt} of Imotlon 2 donln lilh 1 much more important mnttor. It permits the oxocutor, administrator or ropreuontntivu of thu daoonnod ho innurt a claim for In' roouvnr puuuuinry loan to the catnto ooonn1onod by tho wrongful not. nun1ignuco or dnfnult.

no-9...---.------ ._.........-............_. -...... ..-..-nu....--..........-......-.-...........--._....--.-......-..............--.----...--....-a---

1. Rnrugraph R.1. yupru.

2. Ippondix 1. clause 5.

3. Pnrngrnph 8.1. ggggg.

-:33...

izgé:-. 5°4- Th' 5"Dreme Court had oooeeicn to compare the V in oonteutn or section: 1 and 2. end observed an fo11gwn',-

"The onuue or nation under Section 1 gna ghng under ueotion 2 are dirferent. Wh11., undnr Ieotion 1. damage: are reoewernhle for the benefit n of the pereone mentioned therein. under eeotion 2 oonpennation goee to the benefit or the eeteteg whereee under aeotion 1 damages are peynhle in Q.) reepeot or lose eueteined by the pereone nentionod therein. under eeotion 2 denngee oun be claimed 331;; L}; for lone of expectation of life. though in none oeeen parties that are entitled to oonpenee-

tion under both the eeotione any heppen to he the eene poreone. they need not neoeeaeriiy be en; pereone bi entitled to benefit under section 1 may be different from thoue oluining under oeotion 2. {£13. {ﬁg}; ee ﬂ) the two olnine ere to be beeed upon ditierent oeueee or notion. the olninente, whether the eene or different. would be entitled to recover oonpenention Ieperntely under both the heede. If n pereon toting benefit under both the eeotioe ie the enne. he oennet be permitted to recover twice over for the ease loee.

In ewnrding denegee under both the heede. there ehnll not be duplication or the eene olein. that 1:. it en: part or the oonpeneetion representing the loee to the estate goes into the oelouletion of the peroonnl lone under section 1, that portion ehnll be excluded in giving oonpeneetion under eeotion 2 and xinnm-' 1- !.9.md.,nnm;.§.u:rJ.ns.I:.ii- v- - A-I-It 19s2 M. 1.

dition ler IO lo Verbal ohengee recommended.

.. jg, ..

8.5. It ie eettled low thet under the Fetal Acoidente A01 the liability under nation 1 end the lipbility under section 2 ere dietinot. different end independent.' under eeotion 1. denegee ere reoovernble for the benefit of pereone mentioned therein no 1gll_lg!j.1n£Q_Q1;1h3!. 1n contract, under eeoticn 2. denegee are ewerded for the reoonpment or the pecuniary ;glg_1g_1hg_gg;g13 or the deoeneed on e result or the eooident. The two olnine ere beeed upon different ceneee of action and the cleinente would to entitled to recover ocnpeneetion eeparntely under both the heads. If. however, the pereon who takee benefit under section 1 happene to be the eeme pereon ee entitled to oonpenention under enotion 2, there cannot be duplication or the eene claim and oonpenention ewerded under eeotion 2 for the lone or the eetute of the deoeeoed will be taken into account in the calculation of the conponention pnyeble to the claimants under eeotion 1.

The claim thue relates to economic 1oee.2'3"

5.6. lo change or euketance ie needed in thie portion of the Ieotion. However, minor verbol ohengee ere needed. lhele will be evident from the re-draft recommended by ue ee oonteined in on ippendiz to thie Report.' ¢m¢e---no-no-use-1 --e-an:-ocean-e --no-e-oe-none:-u-eupo-u-eve.-e-e¢un--:Q$

1. gm v. gmuu. 1.1.11. 1973 Med. 33. 88-

2. 5,,g_,_q_,_m; v. 1~,;,__m,;. A.I.R. mo a.c. an 375, 377.

pure 4.

3. ]_|_L£.n§_§ v. . 1.x..a. (1966) oua. 500.

4- am v- limmnihumo (1974) ' "Cilia! 370

5. Appendix 1. ulauue 8.

botion 3 -

aendnent »ropoeed.

Aeendeent of leo-

iion 3 pI'O'pOI"e rertiuulere to he liven.

L£:fidIV1'I e 9.2.

.. 35 ..

2lH1'!.B..H £Jw§.D.I1Es1_L.8.n£2,I $115 .1 9.1.

Beotion 3 of the Act in relevant in this respect end '0 N33 new deal with oertein prooedurel nettere.

reede as {allowan-

"'.5- - -

The plnint in any each nation or nuii ehell give a full particular of the pereon or pereone for when. or on whole behelt. euoh nation or euit ehell be brought. and or the nature or the claim in reepeot of which demeaee ehell be eeught to be recovered.' The portion relating to nature of the olein ie redundant. in View of the eyenitio provioiane in the Dede of Oivil Procedure en to contents of p1e1nt,' and ehould bl Oliticd.

9.3. When neotion 3 provides that the plnint uuet give particular: of the neture of the claim. the eoction. 0 ooureu. contenpletoe thet the lee: munt be eet but with teeeoneble details because, utter n11. tha clnin in ta denegen for the 1oee.2 1% would be better it the section expreeely ea providea. and we ptopoee eocordin¢1y.} Oppertunity may eleo be taken at improving the ienguege.

'h19h 1.| " pr.'.ntg II'0hI10e 9-4. It any eleo be provided that there ehell be tiled with the plaint an affidavit by the plaintiff in which he ehell ntute that to the beet or hie knowledge. inronnetion end beliur the pereone on whose behelr the unit ie broughi ea eat forth in the pleint ere the only perenne entitled

1. Ordarﬁ, Rule \, God» of Civil 1':-ooeduro. 1906.

2. lee - (e) Q3313'; V. gggjgnan. A.I.R. 1935 DoI.353»335.

(b) mm v. mun. i.I.n. 1934 0:1. 655.655.

3. 3ee Appendix 1. aleuue 11(1).

Determina-

tion or questions.

/etersins-

tion of questions or listi-

lity end Ullile lon-

joinder of solo 5030- fioisries.

-- 35 ..

or who claim to he ontitlud to tho honurit thoruot.' the oourt in which the uuit in iuotitutud, if or opinion that thorn urn uuffioient ronnonu for doing no, may dtlponjo with tho filling of the nffidsvit.2 9.5.

brought by or for the benefit of two or more persons It may further be provided that where suits ere olsiming to ho entitled, so wire. hulbsnd, purent or child or the doooasod. tho uourt in which the units or either of them are pending may make such order no deems Just for the determination. not only of the question of the lisbility of the defendant, but else of sll questione ss to the persons entitled under this hot to the dnssges if sny. that may be reoovered.5 9.6. It msy elso be useful to have s provision setting out the prooedure for determining questions of liability the tensor - i.e. questions of A suit-

ond questions of olsin.

lisbility ~ should pretornbly be determined Iirst.

sble provision on the subject is recommended.' 9.7. the provinioo oontetned in the «tinting int that the olsim under the not nuot be made on hohslf of s11 the dependants, raises the queetion as to what is to happen if the suit is brought by only some of the benefioisries. is use pointed out in s xersls sse.5 to which s reference hes slresdy been usde.6 to hold thst e suit should be dississed because the other bsnefioisriss are not on record. would be to take too teohhiosl s view. In that psrtioulnr osse.

the objection on the score of non-Joinder had been overruled es-co-seen-coma.-nun-occacobﬁé

--on-o --

_ es -se-es

1..Appeodix 1. oleuse 11(2).

2. Appendix 1. olsuse 11(3).

3e 'Q OJ.I\llC 12.

4. Appendix 1. oiouso 13.

5. 3,], [3433 v. fhgjgggnng. i.1.R. 1970 lot. 241: 246-

6. Persgrsph '.2. sung}.

;I¢ruph aid.

WCC by ﬁhn trial novrt, whoa» vtnw was uphoﬂa by the High Oourt. Ta nvuiﬂ uuqh emptrgyrrrinﬂ orjning olunuhoru.

as may be prnpnr to mukn an uxproau provtuson nu tn.

nubjnot to nnnuro that the non-Joindnr of some of the beneficiaries shall not be 1 ground for dsanianal or the Iuit brcught by the othur bonnr1o1nr1ou but the court may.

whoa pinning but dooroo, nah: nuoh proviutonm in tho docruo an it any oonnmdar Jun! tn oxﬂhr to protoot in:

interest: or tho bano£1u1Ar1uu not Joined.'

1. Ugo Appendix I. cluulu 4(4).

18)

b) lotion 4 --

bfinition I "Person"

ibe littod.

Definitions of "child"

and "parent"

to be oaitted.

Definition of "injury"

to be added.

Other provisions 1 way of interpreta-

tien reoonaended.

.. 35 ..

£lIIIlE_.l RllllI2A2lEl.ﬂI£2Aﬂl.i 10.1. In the present Act the definitions are placed at the end. in section 4. The word "person", it is provided. Invites to bodies Politic and corporate. This definition is no longer required. as the expression "person" in defined in Ieotion 3(42) of the Oneral Glausss Act. 1397. which will become applicable to the proposed net Act. The definition of "person" shauld therefore be emitted.

10.2. The present Act defines the expreesicn "child" as including son and daughter. grandson and grand daughter and step-son and step-daughter. It also defines the eapressin "parents" as including fhthsr. aother and grand father and grand sother. In the light of the considerations already sentioned.' these definitions nay require suitable re-

drafting, which we are separately reconasndin¢.2 10.3. 8o such as regards the definitions already contained in the Act.

first, it is necessary to ineert a definition of the Some new definitions also require to be added.

expression "inJury'.3 on the lines of section 1(6), lngliwh Act of 1976.

10.4. lnrther. it ie necessary to insert certain other provisions in the nature'of interpretation. for which assistance can be taken from the lnglieh Act of 1976. Ihese relate to -

(1) iegieieeoy.' and (11) relationship by affinity.'

1. Ieragraph 51 (e). gang'.

2. lee Appendix 1. clauses 2(1) (h) and 2(2).

3. Appendix 1. Clause 2(4).

4. Bee Appendix 1. clause 2(2) and paragraph 5.5(b). 133;'.

5. See Appendix 1. clause 2(3).

netite I far he lucid e Deduotione tron deaegee not orni-

ﬁeib e under the Inzlilh Lot of 1976.

leendnent or 1982 in Iaglend.

EIRIILJI l 11.1. There etill rennin to be dieoueeed certain nettere vhioh are not dealt with in the in it preeent. nme In new be teken up.

liret. there ie the queetion or dedusione tron denegee. often. the pereon liable to pey denegee under the Lot arguee that certain benefite which accrue on death ahould be deducted while aeeeaeing damages ray death. leelhere the matter hee been dealt with by epeoifio legielation. hut not to far in India. la a reenlt. oertain difficult queetione eriee in India, which need ooneioeretien.

51) 1 11.2. In Bnglend. by eeotin 4 or the fatal iooidente Act e: 1976, it «ea provided that in eeeeeeing denegee in reapeot or e pereon'e death in any notion under the lot. there ehell not be taken into account any ineurenoe money. benefit. pefneion, or gratuity which hee been . or will.

at nay be. paid "ea e reeult or the deth". 'Ineuranoe money" was defined. in eeotion 4(2) of the Act. ee including return of pg-guue. the word "peneien" wee defined to inoludez return of contribution: and any payment of a lump one.

11.}. Thin elaborate ptovieien wee oouteined in eeotion 4 of the Inglilh Act of 1976. By the enendnent of 1982.

I einpler end more eenpreheneive provieion nae been entiti- tuted for eeotion 4. in mien.' Beotion 4. ae mm-

tuted in 1982 in lnglend. now reade ee 1 undera-

1. Paragraph 11.4: inﬁll-

2o 30- 12.9.9.9: v- -. (1954) 2 A11 l.l. 689.

3. Adainiatration of Juetioe Act, 1982 (ln¢.).

Id ian Isa law I to nsuranoe.

Reooaenda-

tion as to deductions.

.. M) ..

'4» A1111sI1nJ.2I_iaIas1si_iin:sss:i_si_hsn1iiisI In assessing daasges in respect of a person's death in an action under this Act, benefits shin: have jog]-ugd °' "111 9' mi! "corn! to any person tron his seats or otherwise an a result of his death shall be disregarded.' 11.4. In India. it is not well settled that the aacunt o! insurance payable to a dependant or the deceased cannot be' deducted iron the damages payable under the Intel Accidents Act.' lut questions often arise regarding other benefits accruing on death. Thus. it has bad: held that 31-gnﬂ' payaents cannot be taken into account in assessing ooapensntion. Ivan as regards insurance aaount. soae High courts stake a nice distinction between the insurance amount proper and its "acceleration". Thus. the loabey View is that the insurance aaount is not to be deducted. but the aooelaration is to be daduotedua Then. there is the question ogdsaily pension.

According to the Karnataks nigh Court, taaily pasion auet ho taken into account for deduction. but providet fund or gratuity cannot be taken into account} 11.5. All such controversies should, in our view, be avoided. It appears to us that the coaprehensive provision in section 4 at the Ingliah Act (as .noacaa).' can be usefully adopted in India. it the sane tine. it appears proper to provido gppgijinallx. (in the Indian act). that the various benefits that were specifically aentioned in the Inglish Act of 1976 (before its anandnant in 19c2).5 3 u-----au--¢--ao¢a-o¢-susueu-caucus 1- £aa£iii_£an1 v- !nnrmnz2_Insnzsnnn_£2anan:. A-I-R- 1982 Delhi 1 (reviews cases).

2. . v. 53.1., 5.1.3. 1902 Boa. 461' (r.s.).~

3." Q B I 0 0 .V. s 'slain uric 'age

4. Paragraph 11.3. 1331;.

5. Paragraph 11.2. gun.

Eoaprahann dve raooaaenda-

'iﬂle are alao not deductible. no that. an thoae aattera. there may not ardae the poaaibildty at different data being adopted in different aourta. inch a aoaprenenedte pre- viaden on the Iubjeot or henetdta accruing on death will aettle the poaitdon on iaportant podnta.

11.6. We are. accordingly recommending an onnibua p:-ov1uon.' accruing an death. and alao apaodfdoally providing that beneﬁt: apeoifdoally enuaerated in the propoaed -pre-

requdrdng the court to ddaregard an beaerdta vision ahall not be taken into account 1n aeuauu damage! payable under the Act.

Qcﬁéua-ncoquoln-o¢~a---G no

1. See Appendix 1. clause 7- U 11' A X ".:':'1' ''2-1- It 1e deeireble to dieouen et thie etece ﬂ" p°'1"'1°" ﬂﬁﬂrdiﬂt eucoeeeion certificate. In e Karel: one reported recently, the Kerele sue. nu"

Transport Corporation oonteeted the chin, rm- °°|IPInee.tion, oi' e widow whoee huebend hed been killed in en eooident oeueed by the negligence or en. ag-1'"

of e hue beloneing to the Corporation. The corporation ineieted thet the widow ehould produce e euocanion oertifioete, before payment of tho oompeneetion oould be made to her. Aurieved by thie refueel, the widow Iov-ed the nut: court or xmne by e letter which wee treeted ee a petition. In ite judgment', the rush court pointed out bhet the widow wee not oleininn ee :1 euooeeeor to her huebendu eetete, but wee oleieine on her own Iooomt and e euoceeeion oertifioete wee not needed in the oeee. nlehore.t1n¢1the point, the X1311 0o\l1"'~ I80 the following oheervetione :-

"!he eeemnption that e euooeeeion certifioete 1e neoeseery for penent of oonpeneetion to the depeneente or e pereon who diee on eooount of eooident 1. evidently not correct. In two deoieione or thin court in §_nn_I.n|.||n.n9,| pjﬂgu v. xmnnmg, (1980) xer.Ur- 562). the eohene of the Indian Fetal Aooidente Act he been nave:-ted to.

1- .l9!h1lD.ﬂD1l.J-AKIDL '- -9 A.I.R. 1981» nr. 97. 99. v-r-am" 5 WW"-

heition where eleie beeed on euqceeeion .

"Evidently. elm eneohent :le brought into Itinbunog 5° 'nIb1° divlndeniu of a person vboee deeth hgu been caused by wrongful eat, neglect or durum;

to claim compeneetion. But for that Act, there would be no use for the hen-e or a deceased to claim compeneetlon on amount of death oeueed by wrongful eat. It ie to eet thie situation that the Fetal Acoidulhe nuekv, the wire, huebend, parent and child of the pereon vhoee death nee been «need, to elude loee reeulung to them from each dee;:h."

12.2. Inetdeatelly, in the line Rlrele cue, the follovine obeeneuone were ude 1-aeu-ding euoceeelen certificate required when e elelm 1e made on the hull nLeumn1nm ' with "'0 matter by enabling peymente to be made et leeet in reepeet or emell mm of money, without e enooeeeion cmifientc haine rtquim' to give lueunity to the dlhtor. we are no' 'am; into that queetion in this ceee, for, ,7." gthgruiee we think we will be able to give relief to the petitioner herein."

xounupennu zggpg v. C}_§1}'3lIﬁg_ K-3.9.3.93'. ¢2?1?.|L-e

1. km. 193» Ker. 97. 99 par-Irtvh 4U"""' lpeciric prcvieicn not needed.

1:44' 12.3. we have ccnaidered the queaticn whether it is neceeeary to introduce, in the Fatal Accidents Act, a proviaion that no eucceeaicn certificate eha11 be required fbr a claim uner the Act. However, we think that thin in obvioue, and the objection ruined by tho Kerala state Road rranaport Corpcraticn in the cane cited above, it we W lav ac. hell'!!! I total miaconcepticn of the 'Lee. It in ineaxceivehle 'hat each an obsamon com he aade by any corporation (public or private) which in Pf0P0f1Y IdV1l0d- "3 40 0°':

tharerbra, prupoee any clarificatory provieicn on the above pointe, at least for the praeent.

1. Paragraph 12.2.. anne-

frond of couonto.

couaonto in roouont th tho VOTHDI o FIDO!' o Qomont rogordln:

quohtum of 901105' o '3-'- M alrow stated, tho caummm has Proparod 9. working popor on tho oubjoot and 1my1g.d comnonto on tontotivo pg-¢po..1., gm... came". an boon roooivod on tho working pgpuv,

13.2. Coumonto roooivod on gho working paper tram atoto oovormnont 3!' Hﬂlnchol Pndooh and the auto Oovcrnuont or Konotoko concur with tho propoan.

of tho Low comioolon, so put forth in tho working Popor (which voro ouhotontiolly tho who no thooo going to he not out 1n tho noxt choptor or thio noport).

13.3. onmcommont on tho working pnpor roooivod from on individual ouuooto that tho amount of Fatal Accidoht Inouronoo Policy should ho mind in now of tho tho 1:: the ooot of living. In thlo contort, we may Point out that tho htol Aocidonto Act dooo not dool with tho mount of inouronoo policy nor with tho quantum' of oouponootion, tho quantum 1o loft to ho £1194 by tho court, with mo rosord to all rolavnnt factor!-

1o Plﬂﬂnph 1012 ﬂin-

2. Law Oommiooioh rm No. 2(1)/83°10. 9"1¢1 *0-12'

3. Low comioolon rilo No.2(1)/55-We 3'"-'1 '°-"5' , . a 1.1 II .16 '*- r-:g,i°:?&:'.*::'.°::}'.::u5£1{E?%';:n.:§.p.en3u ' otrtot).

eleed Act Eeccnended I rug not my! etggg. V. Recommende-

ticn in Appendix 1.

ﬁxer: d1oee -40- 2ﬂ|EII...lII Immmzmnmm 1'o.1. In view or the extene1ve change: which will hove to be carried on in the Act it our recounenuuone contained in the preceding Oheptere are accepted, e revdeed Act (rather than e. mere amending Act) would be more convenient. The revised Act should not have retroepective et'fect, for reeecne elreedv etaeted. 1'+.2. In Appendix 1. we annex e drert 8111. no mm: cleueee eeet to chow, in e concrete form, the nrioue point: Iede 1n the preceding Oheptere.

1|+,3. A comparative table Ihoving the oectim of the .gj_.§1ng Act and the ccrreepcndinl P1'°V1'1°" 3' momucea an the arm am emuud by In 1- 11""

in Appendix 2.

Appgnﬂx 3 oontune e 'Lint of eelected etetutory novieicne In Indie P9033155 '°" '°"'""M"' °"

d.C'he *--.n.~--

1, Appendix 1. «mm 1(3)-

2. lee pertlﬂvh 3o1o 'III-

(x.x. wmmw) cmmmv (J.P. CHATIIRVEDI) mum (UR. M.B. MO) MIMI!!! (P.M. Bmcsnx) pAn'r-'rIMn Mmm (mm P. amnmx) Pm-rm min! (B. RAMAIM1) MBYMR BNRETARY mun: 16-th MAY,1985.

M .E.ru)1>g 1 A.L'.'.'£'._.!1-LE1» II'! TIN': Tfﬂf] Q!' A "HUT

1. T' L\..L1:nnaammL9!..9.LLq§¢_§ Rhnrh tibia. nvﬁﬂnt' pmmmnncnmﬁnt "H" nPp,'c"L!nH. Int6r;rr;sf.n.r,1nn_ R1nht nf mutt for wrongful douth, ﬂn1t fur hnnnfjt of rnlnttvns.

nnly nun nnit porminsihln.

Dnmngen prnpnrtionntn tn injury.

BannT1tn not kw ho tnknn into nvnnunt.

f'.]_n1m fm' Inn!» to thn nntntt'.

Fnn"V r~1d 1ntn onurt.

_ Appnrmnnmnnh of (3mnpnn!1r\t1nn.

1"|n1nh zvnol nfF1dnv.1t.

['nw{g1' Hf (".U'1Tt' [)ntm'm1nnt.1nn nf mwyatﬂnn of' 1jnhHH.y hnfnrn clnim.

Waponl.

ml mommy' mm 31"-o 1985' zllllllnlllo

1. (1) full Act II! ht called the Hrongfn1 p..gh Act 0 1989'.

(2) It mucus to can when of India wept eh. ﬂtuto or Julnu and Kuhur, (3> mmmmm

2 - (1) D1 Shh Lot. IIIIIIII the context othorviu nquiru, 2 (0 "child" lnnludu son. daughter, :1-undlon.

-r-new-um-r. umnm l

(b) "pI.ronV' inoludu father, nothnr, stand-rather, :rmmehorm % g...u....ou.uc.ononuoooonuoonolonl-0oIIHN|"0 (2) mmun.mm.mm".

Bu paragraph .2. an 1" .

::.*:.:::'.:.9'::*;*r;:*g,''.:a°:a'::t -43 In pain'?! -5 0

52.' ﬁt.-".§'.3§ 9% 1») o.ud10.'0(1).

000000 ®.I.I\,.pl0..s QCOQDO (7) 1" (}("1u(~/1,,,« i ' ' | "I '(v'JaQ,zt,(jV"} H I ' '- ~')T Hm 'q Ur apt a An)', 1'9_1_;;(;

D" -t.'f'3~'Ng0rI 1.1:: 3 L!ul'1>o ..'.0HUh1D 1),}; _nU',1fI1C.Y ,nhu1_1 , L ")lULh.1P.._b.Y_ _CnnﬂwUyu1ﬂ1ty .7C<2l5.t.€;Lc2t.>_:r,Igg;; ,3,-Ktjvle "M! M (1 1 . . . .uJ_U

- ~ ~«-~~-- 00 -'~-I3.§¥_-,IT*iLt113.;LQfl5J.?.'12~Qf;_t;_pq .'i*1$J.¢_.1zL<2o. ru.L«L.t. 119.; 5912: cra_1;Lq' 2;.

1.Lz29.r.mu 1 ~c_l'.1M. 'M413 (5) Any rn1'».,,.,,,

-~ -- in t;'v1~ not :1 1,,

- ~ 1.. 2 .. .1vu'.L1.r20,1'zdo.7 5"" <1 r:> .-. .1 .

' -Vi 1 ' ~ J' "ILY in. _.1!.'!'J§'1§ m :1 Lm}'I]g_r'0.7 mmicm 9 '7...'7'¢".tnL . C.-'Q' »J".LJ1.051- ( M .'.*1_L_h."2!Z€lﬂ..,»lrZ 'bills; i "<r__t_{VQ:;;.1_r~ (3_:11_v,_IJ_ J3; 'I'!I'1'!L'f.§_()l1_*,h[J. .1 C , 4 , » 1. _ _s>. . 9.1,. Min! .}:i.r! J10. mam?) .\ihQ.l::__r1f'¢gO;_' .!rI"T<1-T 'mu rel Lyn.

"1:.*'¢2 0.! »."-u1te-rnr._wtv.zrr.::ruL jhutb. 1' 1r H"' h"*h "r " I"V""" h*" "Pun nnnqnd hv nnY """'§"r"' W" "'""""' "" """""'>..E11,9!1_1a...:z'.!Qb[_qu I wnnlr! ('if r"..I:-.th hurl nu', nnmylw'). '9->v_r(s n,,H9.1,,/1 Hp, L"! 3'f'H'."H" 1H_}Hl'ﬂ'§ '44; FA mqintnfn n mujt any pa'-,,y_,,qr dqm.Im~,,, 17! 'r'nmnr~f, "hnTr\,Vf-. thp 1,0-,._n,,yu whn Wm); ],._w, 3:6,," lid"), if death h «? not f'H."'.HP.d, .~Mll, W' H 'Mn tn ~» wit for "'1-"mr""', 31' ?.wH:h«huvd'Vn~ Hr» -math uf Hm pnmnn jnjurml, ,1 mm .c;1§hr.m:l1..the_.<11n§%:.~::4s-wqulzsczaz umlor. _.<2.i.r.c!;mn.§:ugqqrz anaupp.-1T1r2.~LuL&n_<mLw21e..?1xm1.9,L<Asi -s:I:-t:o .un.v...r2.t.h.or 4 .9..f,{.E1°I:-

HHHZ for "- (1) Tﬁvnrv «I19. hrrwmht vmrinr thin "mt nhnll hrs 'H hnnofﬂz vs"

ro_1nt_1vrM for Hm W-nwfit nf Hm rrvl-JV!"-~v' .u;mr~1H¢-M1 SH rznh-nm~Hnv [Nation 114, wncnnrl pnrrw (1) Jr' "W 1' ~!"vnH whrv-n an-,th w n an vnummi, aw, nxvagf.

grnph in part Y'ﬁV hz~rv'1rmH.nr ;rm.r1rlnr1, «WW1 hr' hrnm'.H*. M' -"H in Hm nvmm of H1'! f|Y'V'1lQ',r>T' PH' *~r$u1nl'1f',T':»?.n'l" "f ''-h'.' f'T'f"!."l."'H"'1. P, gm !.qm,.,..,.y,%r:,5(1») mm mm (1%).

1. .« ", ('mo ;~v1t":r'r'\}\h 10.1. W'. Sn." p.'1r'~'?'.'Yih Guru ' '9, Vnr'vm1_ jmprnvﬁnnntn hnvo ham m'~'0, t 1*' ' of' thn imxsrnved dT'l"J1YU'. in Mm Em! inh mt nr 10/ u.

'in.' or rnfnrencns '10 1n.'"'.VI '''°'' ''1''''''"'" 3(M'u .-.,.,.H '7 Thu nxintirvr uh?"-" " "'""Y "" °"''''' °'''"'"" 1" ' ' 1s hnvn hecnm 1nrzI'Prm'r1rxt". "mung (mu nhruvsrrvl wnrr'inr'..

(,_ ,".nr1 _;n'rnr'rn;.h 'hf.

7' Hon .yvf_'v_[fY"![h 5.6'.

rr '?.3'J'!'H1iLF'f' . .

"5'L'1-v "S.f;1f;.?'f2¢ "' " ' 0' 1975' (I) that! is no «mentor or administrator of ﬁlls doouud, or 4 V

(b) no aq\1o 1. brought' psthxn u1:\ucapnu % lftor thl duth by and in tho non of an oxncutor or Idnlnintrator at tho dnonsaody tho unit may be bronchi by and In tho name of I11 1 or any at tho rulattvln lpocitlod in nub-auction (J).

0!. Idle) (3) ::':%;2, c' are tho fO11OU1nIg nanolrp. '

(a) wit! pr humndj

(b) obi I. R

(o) AhI§pIlI:1l:1IIz.11LI.Ilﬁnre (4) pronto 5 M .

m mmmnm? ,, % (1) (In) o (1) -

3. In psrntrnnh V o 3' :f: ifiiii' £1 ,3 - 'Child'- . 70.913739' 0 ' or ﬁﬂ ' 3.33"': awn 2(1Xb)" 9"" ' g: Purlsflvh o 5 '

3. rnmmh - '*-

. rmzmh - '-

9. nmmh o 5 -

1o. rammh - -

- 52 -

(5) ﬂu non-Jotnbr of some of the dmnaum to mm man than us mu not be . (round, for dismissal of the suit bronchi: b" the oﬁhor dependants, but 1n such a me the com, vhcn pmmg . dooroo, ' may make such provisions as it considers just for prn;oct1ng the intoroutn of the dpnndnntn not on record.

Onw one unit 5. not more than om unit shall 110 under this 111119210. 3;3 ' |.a, :1: Act for and in rupture! the an can» of to ion. PI:-uflrh ' .

0f.l.2 3) nuns.-fa uh or 1976.

p,,..,.. 6. m m.uun_mnum.us.L.nm.mmu {§°X§§:.1-y°'.""

numnx.t:n.4m:mn_u.:nn.nmLnn-.-at-'II mmmmnmmmumummmm n..m.mn.

'£3 2'?§'9«;?"1w ':3 3335?' mmnmnﬂo c at umua bl §§.§'§.:a.. ()"-""""""' (3 °g§§§;ér.1|h m a -

'; 0 "1

- ""

Ll '

1.IoI p " ' ' .uo crumb -1 =- 2:' °:..:..'*§:13-'*.::=; :::.:;-3 3-::: §:::::::':. E-22- ar an 0 kn. 93:'? M .3 ma 9-r-art?" 5°'; ' I lcnofttl accruing on death not to be taken into nooont.

C1111: for louu to the Itltﬁo section 2.

second part).

an oonooooooooocooooooo In 'NY .$11t AQ§,_jng_3;gLn§;[j_|g1 lnnort a 01:1: fur and rocovur any poouinry loan to tho outnto o! the dooonlnd occasioned by such wrongful not. neglect or dotault. when nun, when recovered, ahnll be doomed part of the asset: or the ontlto of the dooonuod.'

1. Purugruphu 11.h and 11.6.

2. 800 paragraph; 11.h and 11.6.

3. S 9 paragraph 8.6.

Money paid in court.

C S. 4 sn°'"gﬁ§»'. Bit' of 1976.

Plaint and affidavit.

(8.3).

9o memmig. u own Of which under thll 'ct any be 1" one 'an without specifying the uharne of the reJ&t1vee.1

10. (1) Where the compensation hue not been otherwise apportionod, the Court may apportion it among the pereone entitled.

(2) The Court may in its dinoretion poetpone the distribution of uoney to which minors nre entitled and may direct payment from the undivided fund.2 hzqmmn 11» (1) mu h o -

or on whose behalf the suit is brought, and alao to aet out in reaeonable detail the loss suffered by each of auch pnrannn.5 (2) Thorn shall be filed, with the plaint in euoh a suit, an affidavit by the plaintiff in which he aha11 state that to the beat of his knowledge, information and belief, the pernona on whose behalf the euit ia brought as set forth in the plmint are the only pereone entitled or who claim to be entitlod to the benefit thereof."

\ (3) The court in which the suit is inatituted, it or opinion that thorn are euffioient reaeonl for doing so, may dispense with the filing of the affidavit required by eub-eection(2).5

1. see paragraphs 5.5 Ind 5.10.

2. See paragreph 6.7.

3. See paragraph 9.3- 1». See paragraph 9.!"

5, Hoe paragraph 9.h.

Pbvur of court to dcturnino certain quoltlonn (Now).

Dotcru1nn-

tion or question or 11ub111t ?o£o 0 c Iin.

» New .

Roponl.

&mmm

13.

1. 800 purcgruph 9.5.

2. 3, Saw paragraph 5.2.

Boa paragraph 9.5.

-5L3- é£El!2I£.2 2nInn:ni11n.2Ih11.|hx1na.§hn_11ni1nn M InIi1.nL_n9.u.nn Section 1.

Section 1A, first paragraph lootion 1A, second paragraph Bcction 'IA, third paragraph. section 2, first paragraph. Station 9., second paragraph. eootinn 3.

Section N, part nlating to definition of "parent" .

Section *4, part relating to definition or "child"

motion )1, rulntins to dofinition of "poraon" .

Mﬂ

3. M1), |+(2).

65(1).

11. 2(1) (b) 2(1) (1) Ollittod.

1. Ooction 821, Indian Railways Act, 1890.

2. lootion N(1) rend with section 8(5), Workman': Oonpunantion Act, 1923.

3. auction 3, last parnnrnvh. lMP10Y|?l' Liability Act, 1918 (2% of 1938).

1». aoot1onz»95(1) (b). 96 and 102. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-

5. auction 33. 3mp1oyocn' state Inaurnnco Act, 19% (3% of 19%)-

6. 800151011: 3%. 3W7 Ind 352. ""'°"'""' amppxng Act, 1958-

7. Loaialntion relating to carriage by air.

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Law Commission Report

The Fatal Accidents Act,1855