( 51 ) ANOTHER reason for not making any reduction is that the claimants have been deprived of the enhanced compensation now for nearly ten years. No interest for this period has been allowed.

( 52 ) THE needs of the son will also increase as he enters the portals of life. Provision for his marriage, training for business etc. , will also have to be made. No special allowance has been made on this account in the award. It will be unfair to limit the award to 18 years on the ground that the liability ceases on child becoming sui juris. "the right consideration ought to be-what is the financial benefit of which the family can be reasonably said to have been deprived by the span of life of the deceased having been cut short on account of the fatal accident" (See Kuldip Lal Bhandari v. Urned Singh, 1966 A. C. J. 110 (6) and Sood and Company v. Surjit Kain, 1973 A. C. J. 414 (7 ). The deceased was the hub around which the whole family revolved. He was their mainstay.

( 53 ) ON similar considerations judges in case after case have refused to reduce the amount. (See Damyanti Devi v. Sita Devi, 1972 A. C. J. 334 (8) Sood and Company v. Surjit Kaur 1973 A. C. J. 414; Jaswant Kaur v. Ratti R

Click Here to Read the rest of this document