Udayabhanu, J.

The appellants in A.S. No.56/1990 are the defendants in O.S.No.175/84, the suit filed by the wife on behalf of the minor son as well, of the deceased Jose who was murdered on 10-7-81 by the defendants in furtherance of their common intention to eliminate him. The Sessions Judge convicted the 4th defendant for life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and the same was confirmed by the High Court. The rest of the defendants who were accused in the Sessions Case were acquitted by the trial court itself. A sum of Rs.6 lakhs is claimed as compensation from the defendants for the lose sustained by the plaintiffs due to the untimely death of the husband of the 1st plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge, after considering the evidence adduced in the matter that consisted of the testimony of PWs. 1 to 8. DW-1, Exts.A1 to A15, Ext.B1 and Ext.X1 and X2, awarded a sum of Rs.96,000/-.

2. The 4th defendant who was convicted for murder of Jose died in incarceration in 1986, during the pendency of the suit. The 1st defendant also died while the present appeal was pending. Defendants 2 and 3 were recorded as legal representatives of the deceased defendants.

3. The appellants have challenged the findings of the lower court alleging grossly distorted appreciation of facts involved and application of misconceived notions of law in the process of adjudication. It was pointed out that only 4th defendant was found guilty by the Sessions Judge and hence the rest of the defendants are in no way liable. It was stressed that the 1st plaintiff got remarried and hence she is not entitled for any amount of compensation. The appellants have also found fault with the lower court with respect to the assessment of compensation as well, as it is far excessive.

4. The appellants in A.S.205/94 are the plaintiffs who are aggrieved with the allegedly low amount of compensation awarded and has called for a reconsideration and reappraisal of the entire matter of calculation of compensation.

5. The points to be determined are:

i. Whether all the defendants/appellants in A.S.56/90 are responsible for the death of the husband of the 1st plaintiff/respondent?

ii. Whether the plaintiffs/respondents in A.S.56/90 are entitled for compensation?

iii. If so, whether the amount awarded is liable to be enhanced as contended by the appellant in A.S.225/91 or to be reduced as pleaded by the appellants in A.S.56/90?

6. Point No.1: At the outset, it is to be noted that the plaintiffs and defendants are close relatives neighbours, the mother of the deceased Jose is the sister of the 1st defendant. 2nd defendant is the wife of the 1st defendant and 3rd and 4th defendants are the sons of defendants 1 and 2. As already noted, the incident that culminated in the homicide of Jose took place on 10-7-81. The 2nd plaintiff, the minor son, was just 4 months old then. It has come out in evidence that the 1st plaintiff married Jose on 25-5-80. she remarried on 26-5-85 and was having two more children at the time of trial of the suit. Fourth defendant who was sentenced for life imprisonment was then aged 21 years.

7. The evidence adduced in support of the involvement and responsibility of the defendants in the incident mainly consisted of the testimony of PW-1, the 1st plaintiff and PW-6 Mary, the mother of the deceased Jose. Both of them witnessed the incident. PW-4, the Circle Inspector of Police who investigated the criminal case and PW-6, the medical officer who conducted the post mortem of the deceased; and PW-7 another doctor who recorded the wound certificate of the 2nd defendant were also examined. The F.I.R., charge sheet, the scene mahazar, post mortem certificate, statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the judgment of the Sessions Court in S.C.58/82 as well as the copy of the judgment of the High Court in the appeal were also produced. DW-1, the 1st defendant, who died during the pendency of the present appeal has also testified to counter the case s