Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

29. On account of the death of the deceased, the respondents will receive the amount which they are held entitled to receive as compensation on account of the death of the deceased under Section 1-A or Section 2 of the Act in a lump sum in advance. Therefore, the next question which arises for determination in the appeal is to what extent the amount as found in the preceding paragraphs as individual losses to the respondents and loss to the estate should be reduced on this score. While addressing the Court on this aspect of the matter, learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the valuation tables at page 295 of "Principles and Practice of Valuation" by John A. Parks, 1970 (Fourth Edition). As it appears from Chapter 2 of the same book, at page 15, year's purchase (on the basis of which valuation table at page 295 has been prepared) 'is a very arbitrary figure'. It further appears that the table has been prepared by a valuer who 'is mainly concerned with land and buildings'. I do not consider it, therefore, safe to rely entirely upon the said table. I have also examined a good number of decisions in which reductions have been made in the compensation on this score and have found that the basis on which reductions have been made is not entirely free from arbitrariness. In the circumstances, I have myself made some calculations and have found that if a person who is to be paid Rs. 100/- every year for 10 years, but is paid the entire sum in advance and invests Rs. 900/- on simple interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and goes on withdrawing Rs. 100/- every year out of it, after 10 years he will get a sum of Rs. 270/- as interest. Similarly, if he is paid Rs. 2000/- for 20 years in advance and makes similar investments and withdrawals, he will get Rs. 1140/- as interest after 20 years. If he gets Rs. 3500/- for 35 years and makes similar investments and withdrawals, he will get Rs. 3570/- as interest after that period. In my opinion, therefore, ends of justice will be met if the amount of compensation which, respondent No. 3 is entitled to get is reduced by one-fifth, that which respondent No. 2 is entitled to get is reduced by one-third and that which respondent No. 1 is and all the respondents, as heirs to the estate of the deceased are entitled to get is reduced by half. It has already been held that respondent No. 3 was to get a benefit of Rs. 12000/-from the deceased during the ten years. She should, therefore, get as compensation under Section 1-A of the Act a sum of Rs. 9600/-. It has also been held that the deceased would have spent a sum of Rupees 48000/- over respondent No. 2 during the period of 20 years, and would have spent Rs. 20000/- over her marriage. Out of the sum of Rs. 68000/- Rs. 10000 plus Rs. 2400/-, interest on it for four years, total Rs. 12400/- has to be reduced because that will be available for the marriage of respondent No. 2 after the maturity of the policy, evidenced by Ext. 3. For the balance of Rs. 55600/-, respondent No. 2 should get Rs. 37066/-. For the sum of Rs. 84000/- which the deceased would have spent over respondent No. 1 during the period of 35 years, she should get Rupees 42000/-. Out of this amount of Rupees 42000/- a sum of Rs. 24750.60, which respondent No. 1 has received under the insurance policies, Exts. B (1) and C and half of Rs. 1492/- that is, Rs. 746/- on account of accelerated payment of the said amount under the paid up insurance policy (Ext. B-1), total Rs. 25496.60 shall have tp be deducted. Thus respondent No. 1 is entitled only to a sum of Rs. 16503.40 only. In considering what reduction, if any, should be made out of the sum of Rupees 22500/- which has been held as pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased for the saving which he might have made, interest which that amount would have earned has also to be taken into account. This amount of Rs. 22500/- is made of two sums of Rupees 13500/- and Rs. 9000/-. Applying the same method of calculation which has been applied earlier in determining compensation under Section 1-A of the Act, these sums of Rs. 13500/- and Rs. 9000/- would have earned interest of Rs. 5670/- and Rupees 1080/-, respectively, at the end of 25 years from the accident. Thus, the amount available to the estate at that point of time would have been Rs. 22500+5670+1080 = Rs. 29250/-. During 10 years thereafter this amount would have further earned Rs. 17550/- as interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum. The total loss to the estate of the deceased, therefore, on this score would have been Rs. 46800/- and of this amount only half, that is Rs. 23400/-, can be reduced. Therefore, nothing is to be reduced from Rs. 22500/-, rather the respondents are entitled to Rs. 23400/- on this score. For the sum of Rs. 26000/-which the deceased would have got as provident fund, the respondents would get only half of it, that is, Rs. 13000/-. Thus, the compensation to which the respondents are entitled under Section 2 of the Act ought to be Rs. 36400/-. The total of compensation to which the respondents have been held entitled individually under Section 1-A of the Act is Rs. 63169.40 P. The entire compensation under both the sections, therefore, should be Rs. 63169.40 p. Rupees 36400/- = Rs. 99569.40 p. only and not Rs. 127000.00, as decreed by the Court below. The aforesaid sum of Rs. 99569.40 p. will carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till its realisation. Each of the respondents is entitled to one-third share in Rs. 36400/-, the compensation under Section 2 of the Act, but respondent No. 1 shall be entitled to get added to her share the amount which she might have spent over the upkeep of respondent No. 3 from her share in this amount by making an application in the court below if both of them are not able to reach a settlement between themselves. The amount of compensation payable to respondent No. 2 will also be paid to respondent No. 1 as guardian of the former. Let a decree be prepared accordingly.