Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. There is no grievance with regard to the choice of the multiplier, but according to the Appellants, the contribution taken is far too low. It is submitted that her contribution is much more than Rs. 2,500/- per annum determined by the learned MACT.

5. The question that, therefore, arises in a case such as the present is what is the amount of compensation that is due and payable in respect of the death of a housewife who has no apparent source of income.

March of the law

6. Long ago, in Berry v. Humm & Co., [1915] 1 K.B. 627 the plaintiff claimed damages for the death of his wife by the negligence of the defendant's servants. According to the plaintiff, he had to employ a housekeeper to look after all the work in the house and also to look after his child. Damages, at that time, were based solely on compensation for pecuniary loss, either on the loss of such contribution in the past or on the loss of a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit in the future. But, while giving a constructive interpretation to the existing law, it was said, "I can see no reason in principle why such pecuniary loss should be limited to the value of money lost, or the money value of things lost, as contributions of food or clothing, and why I should be bound to exclude the monetary loss incurred by replacing services rendered gratuitously by a relative, if there was a reasonable prospect of their being rendered freely in the future but for the death."