Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

             Earlier,     there     used     to     be
             considerable        variation         and

inconsistency in the decisions of Courts/Tribunals on account of some adopting the Nance method enunciated in Nance v. British Columbia Electric Rly. Co. Ltd. [1951 AC 601] and some adopting the Davies method enunciated in Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd., [1942 AC 601].

11. The difference between the two methods was considered and explained by this Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport C/FA/1850/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/05/2022 Corporation v. Susamma Thomas [1994 (2) SCC 176]. After exhaustive consideration, this Court preferred the Davies method to Nance method.

12. We extract below the principles laid down in Susamma Thomas:

13. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chandra [1996 (4) SCC 362], this Court, while reiterating the preference to Davies method followed in Susamma Thomas, stated thus:

"16. In the method adopted by Viscount Simon in the case of Nance also, first the annual dependency is worked out and then multiplied by the estimated useful life of the deceased. This is generally determined on the basis of longevity. But then, proper discounting on various factors having a bearing on the uncertainties of life, such as, premature death of the deceased or the dependent, re-marriage, accelerated payment and increased earning by wise and prudent investments, etc., would become necessary. It was generally felt that discounting on various imponderables made assessment of compensation rather complicated and cumbersome and very often as a rough and ready measure, one-third to one-half of the dependency was reduced, depending on the life-span taken. That is the reason why courts in India as well as England preferred the Davies' formula as being simple and more realistic.