Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1961 Supreme(SC) 182

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
14th April, 1961
K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Gobald Motor Service Ltd. and another, Appellants
Versus
R. M. K. Veluswami and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 419 of 1957.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. S. K. Sastri, Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. Bishan Narain, Senior Advocate (M/s. S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji and Ravindra Narain, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain & Co. with him), for Respondents.

Advocates:
BISHAN NARAIN, J.B.DADACHAN, M.S.K.Shastri, RAJINDAR NARAIN, Ravindra Narayan, S.N.ANDLEY

The rights of action under Ss. 1 and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act are distinct and independent, and if a person taking benefit under both the sections is the same, he cannot be permitted to recover twice over for the same loss.

Headnote:
FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT - LIABILITY OF MASTER FOR NEGLIGENCE OF SERVANT - SCOPE - DAMAGES - PECUNIARY LOSS - LOSS OF EXPECTATION OF LIFE - CALCULATION.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Gobald Motor Service Ltd., was engaged in the business of transporting passengers by bus between Dharapuram and Palni, among other places, in the State of Madras. On September 20, 1947, one of the buses of the Company bearing registration number MDC 2414, left Dharapuram for Palni at about 3 p. m. At a place called Thumbalapatti, between Dharapuram and Palni, one Rajaratnam, along with his brother by name Krishnan, boarded the bus. The bus met with an accident at about 5miles from Palni as a result of which some of the passengers, including Rajaratnam, sustained injuries. Rajaratnam died of the injuries received in the accident on September 23, 1947. The first plaintiff, his father; the second plaintiff, his widow; and plaintiffs 3 to 7, his sons, instituted O. S. No. 7 of 1948 against the Company in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, for compensation under S. 1 of the Fatal Accidents Act (hereinafter called the Act) for loss of pecuniary benefit sustained by them personally, and under S. 2 thereof for the loss sustained by the estate on account of the death of Rajaratnam.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court, on a review of the entire evidence held that the speed at which the bus was driven was excessive, having regard to the nature of the ground on which the accident happened, that there was negligence on the part of the driver, and that the appellants were liable therefor. But the High Court discounted the plea that the appellants, apart from their being constructively liable for the negligence of the driver, were also negligent in employing Joseph, who was not a competent driver. Both the courts, therefore, concurrently held that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the driver.
Issues: 1. Whether the accident was due to any negligence on the part of the driver Joseph? 2. Whether the concurrent finding of the two courts that respondents 2 to 7 would be entitled to damages in a sum of Rs. 25,200 for the loss of pecuniary advantage to them was based upon any acceptable evidence but only on surmises? 3. Whether the High Court went wrong in awarding damages separately for loss of expectation of life under S. 2 of the Act, as damages under that head had already been taken into consideration in giving compensation to respondents 2 to 7 for the pecuniary loss sustained by them by the death of Rajaratnam?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The accident was caused by the negligence of the driver, as evidenced by the physical condition of the locality where the accident took place, the excessive speed at which the bus was driven, and the presumption of negligence arising from the fact that the accident occurred on the off-side of the road. 2. The concurrent finding of the two courts that respondents 2 to 7 would be entitled to damages in a sum of Rs. 25,200 for the loss of pecuniary advantage to them was based on acceptable evidence, including the testimony of witnesses, the physical condition of the locality where the accident took place, and the deceased's income and status in life. 3. The High Court did not err in awarding damages separately for loss of expectation of life under S. 2 of the Act, as the rights of action under Ss. 1 and 2 of the Act are distinct and independent, and there was no duplication in awarding damages under both heads.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case Gobald Motor Service Ltd. vs. R. M. K. Veluswami and others:

Case Overview and Facts * The appellant, Gobald Motor Service Ltd., operated a bus service between Dharapuram and Palni. On September 20, 1947, a bus met with an accident near Thumbalapatti (Puliampatti), resulting in injuries to passengers and the death of Rajaratnam three days later (!) . * The respondents, including the deceased's father, widow, and sons, filed a suit for compensation under Sections 1 and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act (!) . * The lower courts found that the accident was caused by the excessive speed of the bus, constituting negligence on the part of the driver, Joseph, and held the company liable (!) .

Negligence and Liability * The Supreme Court affirmed that the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver, supported by the physical evidence of the crash site (the bus crashing into a drain stone and uprooting a tree 25 feet away) and witness testimony regarding high speed (!) . * The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied, creating a presumption of negligence because the bus left the road and caused damage, which would not happen without negligence absent a specific explanation (!) (!) (!) . * The company's defense regarding a broken bolt was rejected as insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence (!) . * The company is liable for the negligence of its servant (the driver) as he was acting in the course of his employment (!) .

Damages under Section 1 (Pecuniary Loss to Dependents) * Section 1 of the Act provides for damages for the loss of pecuniary benefit sustained by the dependents (wife, parents, children) (!) (!) . * Damages are assessed by balancing the loss of future pecuniary benefit against any pecuniary advantage gained by the dependents from the death (!) (!) (!) . * The courts below awarded Rs. 25,200 to the widow and sons (plaintiffs 2 to 7) based on the deceased's status as a doctor, his age (34), and his potential future earnings and contributions to the family (!) (!) . * The Supreme Court accepted this figure as a reasonable and conservative estimate of the pecuniary loss (!) .

Damages under Section 2 (Loss to Estate and Expectation of Life) * Section 2 of the Act allows for a claim for pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased, including loss of expectation of life (!) . * The courts awarded Rs. 5,000 to the respondents under Section 2 for mental agony, suffering, and loss of expectation of life (!) . * The Supreme Court held that the rights of action under Sections 1 and 2 are distinct and independent (!) (!) (!) . * While duplication of damages is prohibited if the same party claims for the same loss under both sections, there was no duplication in this case because the Section 1 award covered the loss of future support to the family, while the Section 2 award covered the loss to the estate and expectation of life (!) .

Conclusion * The appeal was dismissed with costs, upholding the High Court's judgment that confirmed the liability and the quantum of damages (!) (!) .

Judgment

SUBBA RAO, J. : This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated January 16, 1953, modifying the decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, in O. S. No. 7 of 1948, a suit filed by the respondents for compensation under the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1855).

2. The appellant, Gobald Motor Service Ltd. (hereinafter called the Company), was engaged in the business of transporting passengers by bus between Dharapuram and Palni, among other places, in the State of Madras. On September 20, 1947, one of the buses of the Company bearing registration number MDC 2414, left Dharapuram for Palni at about 3 p. m. At a place called Thumbalapatti, between Dharapuram and Palni, one Rajaratnam, along with his brother by name Krishnan, boarded the bus. The bus met with an accident at about 5miles from Palni as a result of which some of the passengers, including Rajaratnam, sustained injuries. Rajaratnam died of the injuries received in the accident on September 23, 1947. The first plaintiff, his father; the second plaintiff, his widow; and plaintiffs 3 to 7, his sons, instituted O. S. No. 7 of 1948 against the Company in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, for compensation under S. 1 of the Fatal Accidents Act (hereinafter called the Act) for loss of pecuniary benefit sustained by them personally, and under S. 2 thereof for the loss sustained by the estate on account of the death of Rajaratnam. They alleged in the plaint that the driver, who was in charge of the bus, was incompetent and inexperienced, that he was guilty of rash and negligent conduct in the driving of the bus, and that the accident was the result of his incompetence and negligence. The Company in its written-statement denied the said allegations and pleaded that the accident was the result of the central bolt of the left rear spring suddenly giving way that Rajaratnam was also guilty of contributory negligence and that in any event me damages claimed were excessive. The learned subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that there was no proof that the bus was driven at a reckless speed at the scene of the accident, but the fact that the accident occurred on the off-side of the road was itself evidence of his negligence and it had not been rebutted by the defendants. He further held that the driver was not proved to be incompetent. On those findings, he held that the defendants were liable for the negligence of their servant, and he awarded damages as follows:

(1) Plaintiff 1 .. Rs. 3,600 under S. 1 of the Act. 3

(2) Plaintiffs 2 to 7..Rs. 25,200 under S. 1 of the Act.

(3) Plaintiffs 2 to 7 ..Rs. 6,000 under S. 2 of the Act.

Against the said decree, the defendants preferred an appeal to the High Court and it came to be disposed of by a Division Bench of that Court. The High Court on a review of the entire evidence held that the speed at which the bus was driven was excessive, having regard to the nature of the ground on which the accident happened, that there was negligence on the part of the driver, and that the appellants were liable therefor. But the High Court discounted the plea that the appellants, apart from their being constructively liable for the negligence of the driver, were also negligent in employing Joseph, who was not a competent driver. Both the courts, therefore, concurrently held that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the driver. On the question of damages, the High Court confirmed the amount of compensation awarded to the plaintiffs 2 to 7 both under Ss. 1 and 2 of the Act, but in regard to the first plaintiff, it reduced the compensation awarded to him from Rs. 3,600 to Rs. 1,000; with this modification, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants raised before us the following points. (1) The finding of the High Court that the bus was driven at an excessive speed at the place where the accident occurred, ba

Click Here to Read the rest of this document