Gobald Motor Service Ltd. & Another vs R. M. K. Veluswami & Others on 14 April, 1961
Gammell case8 was
followed by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High
Court in Ramesh Chandra v. M.P. State Road Transport Corpn.9
It was pointed out that the decision in Gammell case 8 was
in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Gobald Motor
Service Ltd. v. R. M. K. Veluswami4 in which it was held
that "the capitalised value of his income subject to
relevant deductions would be loss caused to the estate of
the deceased". The annual loss to the estate was computed
in Gammell case8 to be the amount that the deceased would
have been able to save, spend or distribute after meeting
the cost of his living, and damages for loss to the estate
were computed after applying, a suitable multiplier to the
annual loss. So, in computation of annual loss the amount
that the deceased would have spent on dependents was not
taken into account. The result of such a computation was
that in cases where the dependents were not the persons to
whom the estate devolved, there was likelihood of
duplication of damages. To remove this risk, Parliament
amended in 1982 the Law Reforms (Miscellaneous Provisions)
Act, 1934, by providing that damages recoverable for the
benefit of the estate will not include any damages for loss
of income in respect of any period after the victim's death
(Administration of Justice Act, 1982 Section 4; Winfield &
Jolowicz, Tort, Twelfth Edn. pp. 659-60).