HIRA LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It having been proved that Shiv Raj Kumar died on account of a live electric wire hanging down on the footpath of Rajbaha Ibban, and it was due to the gross neglect and carelessness of the Punjab Hydro-Electric Department, question arises as to what damages, if any, are his parents, who are plaintiffs in this case entitled?

(2.) The facts proved in this case are that the deceased on the date of his death was, according to the plaintiffs, 11 or 12 years of age, though, according to the defendants, he was 14 years old. He was studying in the fifth primary class. He had good physique and according to his teacher, he war, a mediocre student. His father was once Mukhtar of Messrs. Phaggu Mal Sant Ram, a firm of Amritsar, and later on, he became a clerk of an advocate there. The plaintiffs arc poor people and were allowed to file the suit as also the present appeal in forma pauperis. They have three other sons, aged 28, 24 and 20 years but they are all separate from them. The action has been brought under section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act, No. 13 of 1855, which runs as under:- "Whenever the death of a person shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect or default and the act, neglect or default is such as would (if death had not ensued) have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the party who would have been liable if death had not ensued shall he liable to an action or suit for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured, and although the death shall have been, caused under such circumstances as amount in law to felony or other crime. Every such action or suit shall be for benefit of the wife, husband, parent and child, if any, of the person whose death shall have been so caused, and shall be brought by and in the name of the executor, administrator or representative of the person deceased and in every such action the Court may give such damages as it may think proportioned to the loss resulting from such death to the parties respectively, for whom and for whose benefit such action shall be brought; and the amount so recovered, after deducting all costs and expenses, including the costs not recovered from the defendant, shall be divided amongst the before-mentioned parties, or any of them, in such shares as the Court by its judgment or decree shall direct."

(3.) Under this Act the Court has been given a discretion to allow such damages as it thinks proportionate to the loss resulting from such death, to the parties for whom and for whose benefit such action has been brought. The principles governing the assessment of such damages have been discussed in a number of authorities. The Court has to determine the pecuniary loss resulting from the death, to the parties beneficially entitled. Only such damages can be given as can be shown to have been financially suffered by those who bring the action, that is to say, the loss of pecuniary benefits which the plaintiffs would have got from the deceased if the latter bad not died. In estimating such loss, the age of the deceased, his expectations of life, the consideration of his health, his habits and other matters which go to show his earning capacity, have to be considered. The reasonable expectations of pecuniary advantage by the deceased remaining alive may be taken into account and damages given in respect of that expectation. The Court should not grant sympathetic damages or damages by way of solatium for the loss. Assessment of damages in a case under this Act must necessarily be rough and approximate, and the investigation be more or less a guess work, for it is impossible to accurately estimate the loss which has been sustained by the death of a husband, wife, parent or child.