JUDGMENT

The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation seeks special leave to appeal to this Court from the judgment dated 9th March, 1992 of the High Court of Kerala in M.F.A. No. 661 of 1986 enhancing compensation in a fatal accident action from a sum of Rs. 58,760/- to a sum of Rs.2,64,000/-. The respondents-claimants are the parents, widow and the children of Thomas Philip, aged 38 years who died in an unfortunate motor-accident that occurred on 19-2-1984 at a place called Plamood Junction at Pullad on Thiruvalla-Kothancherry in the State of Kerala involving a bus owned by the appellant. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides. Special leave granted.

The deceased Thomas Philip at the time of this unfortunate and untimely death was employed in the newspaper establishment of Malayala Manorama on a monthly salary of Rs. 1032/-. These facts and the fact that the accident was the result of actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the bus are not disputed.

2. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alleppey in O.P. (M.V.) No.330/1984 on some calculations of its own, which we find it difficult to approve, determined a compensation of Rs. 58,760/- to the respondents claimants. On appeal by them, the High Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2.,64,000/-. The High Court, in addition to the usual award for loss of dependency, made award for special damages for funeral expenses, journey to the hospital, treatment expenses etc. The High Court has also determined the amount of compensation on account of loss of dependency to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/-. The High Court awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under the head "Loss of future earnings in the United States of America". This sum of Rs. 2,64,000/- was directed to be paid together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the petition i e. 15-6-1984 till payment.

3. Sri Kishnamoorthy Iyer, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of this appeal, urged that this is a clear case of claimants being over-compensated and that the principles of assessment of compensation do not support the award of Rs. 1,80,000/-, He submitted that admittedly the income of the deceased was Rs. 1032/- per month from which, if the usual deductions for personal living expenses of the deceased, are made the loss of dependency could not be more than Rs..600-700/- per month and if that multiplicand is capitalized on the number of years purchase appropriate to the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever may be higher) the amount would not exceed Rs. 70,000/- to Rs, 80,000/-. Sri Krishnamoorthy Iyer further submitted that even if the usual awards for loss of consortium an loss of expectation of life, which are awards in conventional figures are added the total compensation ought not to exceed Rupees 1,00,000/-in this case. Sri E.M.S. Anam, learned Counsel for the respondents claimants, however, strongly sought to support the award under appeal.

4. We are afraid, the reasoning of the High Court cannot be said to be along the settled principles governing the matter. The reference to and reliance upon the principle in Pickett v. British Rail Engineering Ltd., (1978) 3 WLR 955 (H L), as we may indicate presently, appears to us somewhat misplaced. It is a different matter that that case itself was statutorily overruled in England. The determination of the quantum must answer what contemporary society "would deem to be a fair sum such as would allow the wrongdoer to hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing". The amount awarded must not be niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free society in generous scales. All this means that the sum awarded must be fair and reasonable by accepted legal standards.

5. The rule in common law in Baker v. Bolton, (1808) 1 Camp 493, enunciated by Lord Ellenborough was that "In a Civil Court, the death of a human being could not be complained of as an injury". Indeed, the maxim actio personalis m