KRISHNA IYER, J. :- The parties to these appeals invite the Court to evaluate life, which is priceless, by the negative device of assessing the loss inflicted by death on those who lived on the deceased's longevity. In this mundane world, even the irreparable can be repaired somewhat by money and the law computes compensation for loss of life as "a hard matter of pounds, shillings and pence", based not on "sentimental damage, bereavement or pain or suffering" but on "a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit as of right or otherwise, from the continuance of the life".

2. A stage carriage, belonging to the 1st defendant-company, was plying, with lethal rashness, on the Vypeen-Pallipuram road on the ill-starred day, the 12th December, 1959. This lovely island has but rugged roads and the working-class denizens, who make a livelihood by employment outside the island, depend largely on buses for their daily journeys. Three such workmen by name Ande Chouro, Joseph Sylvian and Pathrose Raphael, all employed in Volkart Bros., were on their way to their work-place in the morning that day. According to the plaintiffs, the 1st defendant's overloaded bus, propelled recklessly by its driver, barged against a 'waterpipe pillar,' turned turtle and, as a result, several persons sustained serious injuries of whom the three men later succumbed to their injuries and died. All the three were the breadwinners of their poor families and on their death the dependants were cut adrift and so, they claimed compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act, Act 13 of 1855 - for short, called the Act - by way of pauper suits, which were duly resisted by the owner of the bus, the 1st defendant company, both regarding culpability and quantum of compensation. The trial Court overruled the pleas of the defendant on both heads and decreed damages to each set of defendants in substantial sums of Rs. 13,110 in O. S. No. 20 of 1955 of the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam (O. S. No 46 of 1961 of the Sub Court, Cochin) (Chouro), of Rs. 21,040 in O. S. No. 21 of 1965 of the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam O. S. No. 48 of 1961 of the Sub Court, Cochin (Sylvian) and of Rs. 23,001 in O. S. No 22 of 1965 of the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam (O. S. No. 47 of 1961 of the Sub Court, Cochin) (Raphael). The owner of the bus, held vicariously liable by the Court below, has come up in appeal challenging the decree, by raising contentions, frivolous and serious, in a desparate effort, may be, to escape all liability under the Act. The recklessness of the driving is matched only by the recklessness of his pleas about culpability. For instance, in his written statement, the mishap is blamed on the bad condition of the road and in the appeal memorandum an audacious but confessional contention of volenti non fit injuria is seen raised. The dangerous and treacherous state of Vypeen roads, it is pleaded, almost induces accidents. If that be so and perhaps it is Government is lucky that few people are conscious of their right to claim damages from it where the injury is reasonably occasioned by its misfeasance. However, such lamentable neglect of the maintainance of the highway must make a prudent motorist, driving in broad day light on a familiar route, more circumspect and it can never be an excuse for releasing him from legal duty to take care. The greater the danger, the greater the care, should be the guideline of the motorist. In this case, the evidence is clear, and the circumstances speak for themselves, that the 'fifth act' of the tragic drama which took the toll of three lives was brought about by the gross negligence of the driver. The defendant has taken up a ground in appeal that the plaintiffs should be non-suited on the principle of volenti non fit injuria. Scienti and therefore volenti may, perhaps, be the basis of the argument. In other words, the plea of the owner is that the reckless driving of his buses is so chronic and notorious that any one who steps into