G. P. SINGH, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 110d of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against an award dated 16th Feb. , 1970 by which the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hoshangabad, has allowed Rs. 9,000 to the appellants as compensation in respect of a motor accident. The appellants seek enhancement of compensation.

( 2 ) THE accident which led to the claim for compensation made by the appellants took place on 17th Dec. , 1976. In this accident, Vijai Kumar who was aged 19 years died. Appellant No. 7 Smt. Rewabai is the mother of the deceased. She, at the time of the accident, was aged 50 years. Appellants 1 to 6 are brothers and sister of the deceased. It may be mentioned at the outset that appellants 1 to 6 are neither the dependents mentioned in Section 1a of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, nor legal representatives under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Appellant No. 7 alone who is a dependent under the Fatal Accidents Act and also a legal representative in accordance with Section 8 and class 1 of the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, could have maintained the action for recovery of damages under Sections 1-A and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act. The respondents have not appealed against the award. The finding that the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle must, therefore, be taken to be established. The only question is as to the quantum of compensation.

( 3 ) THIS is a case in which the only dependent left by the deceased is the mother aged 50 years. The mother's dependency taking the average age as 65 years would continue for 15 years. The deceased was a student in the Industrial Training Institute. He was undergoing the training of fitter. After passing the said training in one or two years he would have started earning Rs. 300 to Rs. 400 per month. This is abundantly clear from the evidence of Pavan Kumar Singh (P. W. 3) and Suresh Chandra Sahu (P. W. 9 ). The mother had the immediate prospect of getting about Rs. 100 per month for her maintenance from the deceased. Having regard to the age of the mother, we would apply the multiplier of 10 to the annual loss of dependency of Rs. 1,200. The principles bearing on the assessment of compensation for loss of dependency have been recently stated by this Court in State v. Devi Rawat, AIR 1981 Madh Pra 173 to which one of us (C. J.) was a party and in which all relevant cases including the decision of the House of Lords in Cookson v. Knowles, (1978) 2 All ER 604 (HL) have been taken into account. We do not, therefore, want to burden our judgment with restatement of those principles. The compensation payable on account of loss of dependency to the mother works out to Rs. 12,000.

( 4 ) IN addition to damages for loss of dependency under Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act, the mother, as earlier mentioned by us, is also entitled as a legal representative of the deceased to claim compensation under Section 2 of that Act for loss to the estate of the deceased; (Gobald Motor Service v. Veluswami, AIR 1962 SC 1; G. K. Subramonia Iyer v. T. K. Nair, AIR 1970 SC 376 and Shan-karrao v. Babulal, 1980 MPLJ 563 : (AIR 1980 Madh Pra 154) ). Till recently it was generally understood that damages recoverable for loss to the estate are in respect of loss of expectation of life of the deceased and not in respect of loss of earnings of the "lost years" meaning thereby the period during which the deceased would have continued to earn but for his death in the accident It was, therefore, common to award conventional and moderate damages; (see Banham v. Gambling, (1981) 1 All ER 7 (HL) and Shankarrao v. Babulal at p. 573, para 22 (of MPLJ) : (at p. 162 of AIR) (supra)), Even in cases where damages were claimed for personal injuries the law was that damages in respect of future loss of earnings could be awarded only in respect of the period of life left to the plaintiff and not by reference to his expectation of working life, as it would have been,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document