The Actuary's multiplier based on the Diplock method is now scientifically accepted as the best and also the simplest method for computing future loss of earnings.

M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) SEVERAL important 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 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 claimant-respondent 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. Sadasiva Reddi, the learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that the award of 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. 3,000/- 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 judgement in K. Sapana v. Appa Rao, C. M. A. No. 258 of 1980 : (reported in (1987) 2 Andh LT 349), I am referring to the various sub-heads relating to Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Losses. Again in P. Satyanarayana v. Babu Rajendra Prasad, C. M. A. No. 664 of 1981 : (reported in (1987) 2 Andh LT 328), I am discussing the mode of assessment of non-pecuniary damages. In this judgement 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 full-compensation . That concept was first stated by Lord Blackburn in Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co. , (1980) 5 AC 25 at P. 39. 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 v. Shephard, 1964 AC 326 at p. 346, 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 today 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 Compensation - Is It To Be Based On Post-Accident Span Of Life ?

( 5 ) THIS deals with the question of lost Years - the years of expectation of life lost due to the injury. Unfortunately, in Oliver v. Ashman, (1962) 2 QB 210 (C. A.), 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 v. Gambling, 1941 AC 157. The wages in heaven were not to be included. Thus, if a person who has forty years of expected life has his 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 v. Collins, (1966) 115 CLR 94 by a majority dissented from Oliver v. Ashman and said that Benham v. Gambling was wrongly i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document