(1.) Whether the actual receipt of insurance, provident fund, pension, or gratuity benefits by the dependants of a victim of an automobile accident must be taken into consideration for fixing a suitable multiplier in their claims of compensation under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, is the significant question in this reference to the Full Bench.
(2.) At the very threshold one must dutifully notice that herein there is undoubtedly a sharp cleavage of judicial opinion. There are two distinct and rival schools of thought. On one side is the somewhat liberal view that insurance, provident fund, pension or gratuity are the products of the employee's service or his thrift. Their true character is such that a tortfeasor should 0take over the benefit of these by getting a credit for them in mitigation of the damages that he must pay. They are the deferred returns of a man's thrift, prudence and foresight which are the true source of these benefits to his dependants and not the accident as such. Arrayed on the other side is the stricter view that damages are not to be punitive. That the claimant's actual financial loss to his pocket can alone be recovered, and that since the accident brought these financial benefits as well as losses both must be taken into account in balancing liquidated damages payable.
(3.) In the aforesaid context there appears to be a global controversy ranging from the mother country to the Commonwealth of Australia in he south and to that of Canada in the west. The aforesaid conflict of views is perhaps best symbolised by the narrowly divided House of Lords in Perry v. Cleaver, (1969) 1 All ER 555. Therein, by a majority of three to two the liberal first school of through has been authoritatively adopted. Undoubtedly, herein the choice is not easy because eminent judicial minds have subscribed to either of the two views, With respect, for the detailed reasons delineated hereinafter, we opt wholly for the majority view in Perry v. Cleaver (supra)