SHRIRAM HARI TAMBEY Vs. DIWAKAR RAMCHANDRA KHARABE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER discussing the evidence, his Lordship proceeded) These positions having been ascertained, then comes the question as to the award of damages, which in principle is in the nature of restitution to those who depended on the deceased, and, secondly, for the loss of the life of the deceased itself. It is not punitive in any manner and the Court is called upon to balance every interest as much as possible and to arrive at a reasonable sum which will meet not only the expectation of life but commensurate the demands of those who expect to depend on such life.

(2.) AS far as the present appeal is concerned there are two divergent approaches canvassed before me. On behalf of the appellant -plaintiff who is the head of the family who was expecting Sulabha to grow up and help in the waning years of the father, it is said there is a good case made out for granting damages both under Section 1 -A as well under Section 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act and that Rs. 10,000/ - is the minimum measure put by the father on the loss of this brilliant life.

(3.) SUFFICE it to say, therefore, the approach of both the parties is diametrically opposite. In fact at one stage it was canvassed by the respondents that the trial Judge's judgment is not based on any evidence and is purely a guess -work which is not in accordance with law.