The main legal point established is the assessment of damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, emphasizing the reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit and the distinction between damages recoverable under S.1A and S.2.

1. These appeals have arisen in an action for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, XIII of 1855.

2. Krishnamoorthi, the eldest son of the plaintiffs 1 and 2, was hit on the evening dusk of February 26, 1956, by a Town Bus owned by the 1st defendant and driven by the 2nd defendant, and was so severely injured that he died in hospital on the early morning of February 28, 1956. He was a smart bright boy, aged 8 years at the time of the accident, studying in Standard III having been at the top of his class all through. His parents are affluent. He had a reasonable prospect of occupying a good position in life. In respect of his death caused by the negligence of the 2nd defendant the plaintiffs claimed Rs. 30,000/-as damages. At the instance of the 1st defendant, the 3rd defendant-company, with which the bus had been insured against accidents, was also brought on record. The District Judge fixed the damages at Rs. 5,000/-and held defendants 2 and 3 and the estate of the 1st defendant liable. A. S. No. 1054 is by the 3rd defendant, the insurance company; A. S. No, 1083 by defendants 4 to 8 being the legal representatives of the 1st defendant; and A. S. No. 1094 by the plaintiffs.

3. That the fatal accident was caused by the negligent driving of the bus by the 2nd defendant has been found by the District Judge and is borne by the evidence on record. The real problem here is of the assessment of damages, that made by the District Judge being challenged by the plaintiffs as too low and by the defendants as excessive. The 3rd defendant claims complete immunity in this action.

4. The Fatal Accidents Act provides two distinct rights of action: (i) under S.1A for damages "proportioned to the loss resulting from such death to" the wife, husband, parent or child of the deceased the word 'parent' being defined to include father, mother, grandfather and grandmother and the word 'child' to include son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, step-son and step-daughter;

and (ii) under S.2 for damages in the nature of compensation for "any pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased occasioned by" the accident.

Though the action or suit is to be brought by "the executor, administrator or representative of the person deceased" the claim tinder S.1A is for the benefit of the relatives specified above, and the claim under S.2 is to be part of the assets of the deceased's estate. The plaintiffs in the present case are the father, the mother and the grand-mother of the deceased. The father and the mother being the heirs of the deceased would alone be entitled to the latter claim while all the plaintiffs are entitled to this former.

5. S.3 of the Act requires:

"The plaint in any such action or suit shall give full particulars of the person or persons for whom; or on whose behalf such action or suit shall be brought and of the nature of the claim in respect of such damages shall be sought to be recovered."

Hence, the plaint has to set forth the full particulars of the claims in respect of which damages are claimed by the plaintiffs.

6. Under S.1A the claim can only be (in the words of Pollock C. B.) "in reference to a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit, as of right or otherwise, from the continuance of the life" that was done away with. (Vide Franklin v. S. E. Railway 1858,3 H &N 211).

The position is explained in Winfield on Tort (7th Edition, pages 133-134) thus: it

.... no award in the nature of a solatium for mental suffering and anguish for the loss of the deceased will be made .... Nor is a mere speculative possibility of pecuniary benefit sufficient, as where the person killed was aged four years and his father proved nothing except that he had intended to give the child a good education.

On the other hand, there may be a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit although the relatives had no legal claim to support by the deceased, as where a son who was killed had voluntarily assisted his father in the father's work, or where he once ga