The principles for assessing damages in a fatal accident case include the deceased's age, his contribution to the family business, the period for which the plaintiff could reasonably have expected to benefit from his services, and the contingencies that might have affected the plaintiff's dependency on his son.

ANANTANARAYANAN, J :- These appeals arise out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 20,750 as damages, out of which plaintiff sought to recover Rs. 20,000 from the Indian Mutual General Insurance Society (second defendant in the suit), with regard to a fatal accident to his son Subbanna. aged 18 years. The learned Subordinate Judge of Chingleput tried the action on the merits, and gave a decree for Rs. 7500 due from both defendants, with proportionate costs. The Indian Mutual General Insurance Society Ltd. Madras (second defendant) has instituted the main appeal from this judgment and decree, which is on the substantial merits as well as on the quantum of damages, namely A. S. 162 of 1961. A. S. 309 of 1961 is an appeal by the plaintiff in the suit, which is limited to the ground that the quantum of damages ought to have been determined as at least Rs. 15000 in favour of the plaintiff-appellant.

2. A fact, which is of some relevance in the situation before us, is that D. Paddabhoy Reddi (first defendant), the proprietor of the lorry which caused the fatal accident, according to the evidence, and who was mulcted in damages equally with the second defendant insurance Society, had not instituted any appeal, from the decree against him. But, however this might be, the second defendant society (appellant) is certainly entitled to plead that the grounds upon which it seeks to set aside the decree for damages should be independently assessed by us in appeal, notwithstanding the somewhat curious and inexplicable failure of the first defendant to agitate the matter at all, or even to associate himself with the second defendant in the main appeal. Another relevant fact, which may be stated at the outset itself, is that Godi Chakravarthi, the driver of the lorry of the first defendant, who actually caused the fatal accident, was prosecuted for a criminal offence and ultimately acquitted in the court of Session, Chingleput. It is conceded that while the fact of this acquittal may not be irrelevant, the judgment of the acquittal has no direct bearing upon the merit of this action; this action by the plaintiff will have to be judged, exclusively on the facts of its record. Further, it is not in controversy before us that the acquittal by the court of Session was based, not on any explicit finding that the accident occurred in some other manner, as claimed by the first defendant, but on the award of the benefit of doubt to the concerned accused.

3 -9. (After referring to pleadings, evidence and argument (Paras 3 to 9) His Lordship concluded.) The claim for damages is thus substantiated beyond controversy.

10. With regard to the quantum, the two appeals may be taken up and regarded together. The facts here are that

Subbanna was the fourth son of the plaintiff, and that he was looking after the lorry business of his father, who was a middle-aged man. The plaintiff did not produce his accounts, but the only evidence about profits from the lorry business is that of the plaintiff, who alleges that he conducts the business with two lorries, and derives an average profit of Rs. 500 per month. The learned Subordinate Judge was of the view that the plaintiff was making a profit of Rs. 208-8-0 per month, or roughly Rs. 2500 per year, from the lorry business, restricted to the share which could be attributed to the management of Subbanna. From this, he estimated the pecuniary ioss as three years' loss of profits, and quantified the damages at Rs. 7500. Undoubtedly, this is quite arbitrary, and based upon no logical or perceptible foundation. We have been at some pains to ascertain the true principles applicable to the facts as in the record, in estimating the damages to be properly awarded to the plaintiff in an action of this kind.

11. Those principles will be found tersely stated in Halsbury's Laws of England (Simonds Edn) Vol. II, pages 257 and 258 (paragraphs 429 and 430). Again in Gobald Motor Service v. Veluswami A