M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) SEVERAL importment questions relating to the computation of the present value of future earnings or losses arise in this appeal. The principles of law that I propose to discuss will be useful not only for computing damages in claims by the injured but also in claims by dependants of deceased persons. The object is to evolve a simple and easy method which, at the same time, is scientifically valid.

( 2 ) THE Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act was dealing, in this case, with the claim of a person injured in an accident on July, 30th, 1978 consequent to which the claimant s right leg below the knee was amputated. At that time, the claimantrespondent was aged 35 years and was working as a technician in the Merchant Navy. In a claim for Rs. two lakhs, the tribunal awarded Rs. one lakh. The owner of the motor vehicle which was responsible for the injury to the respondent, is the appellant before me Sri c. Sadasiya Reddi, the learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that the award of Rs. 97,000/towards present loss of future earnings is grossly excessive. On the other hand, Sri V. L. N. G. K. Murthy, for the respondent, has contended that the Tribunal could have passed a higher award if it had only taken into account the other allowances payable to the respondent. He also contends that the award of Rs. 3000/only towards pain and suffering etc. is grossly inadequate. Of course, there is no cross- appeal by the injured. Some argument was faintly raised by the appellant s counsel on the question of negligence but on account of the large volume of evidence in support of the finding of the Tribunal, that question does not require any fresh examination. The argument relating to present value of future earnings, however, deserves detailed consideration.

( 3 ) IN my judgment in K. Sapana vs. Appa Rao I am refering to the various sub-heads relating to Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Losses. Again in P. Satyarrarayana vs. I. Babu Rajendra Prasad and Another I am discussing the mode of assessment of non-pecuniary damages. In this judgment of mine, I shall deal with estimation of the quantum of future losses or income.

( 4 ) PECUNIARY damages have to be evaluated on the basis of fullcompensation . That concept was first stated by Lord Blackburn in Living stone vs. Rawyards Co. It is true that perfect compensation is hardly possible and money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered as stated by Lord Morris in West vs. Shephard, but a person injured is entitled to full compensation for the financial loss suffered. Mc Gregor on Damages (13th Ed. p. 738), Kemp and Kemp on Damages (1982 para 1. 002) state that this to-day is a clear principle of law. The Pearson Commission (1978, Vol. 1, para 330) has also endorsed this view when it said pecuniary loss should be compensated in full . Full Compensationis It To Be Based on Post-Accident Spaa of Life?

( 5 ) THIS deals with the question of lost Years the year; of expectation of life lost due to the injury. Unfortunately, in Oliver vs. Ashma, the court of Appeal took the view that the loss of future earnings of an injured person should be computed on the basis of the post-accident span of life. In so doing, it thought that that was the view of Lord Simon L. C. in Benham vs. Gambling. The wages in heaven were not to be included. Thus, if a person who has forty years of expected life has expectancy cut short to (say) two years, the loss of earnings for him or to his heirs are to be computed only for two years, according to Oliver s case.

( 6 ) AS this was obviously unjust, the Australian High Court in skelton vs. Collins by a majority dissented from Oliver vs. Ashman (5 supra) and said that Benham vs. Gambling (6 supra) was wrongly interpreted by the court of Appeal in England. It is the pre-accident expectation that is the criterion, the Court held. The Canadian Supreme Court too refused to follow oliver vs Ashman (5 supra) and foll

Click Here to Read the rest of this document