The earning capacity of a deceased person for the purpose of assessing damages under the Fatal Accidents Act is to be determined by reference to all the material circumstances of the case, including the deceased's age, education, experience, and prospects of advancement.

1. There will rarely be a parallel to this case. The appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the wife, son and daughter of one Natwarlal who was alleged to have been murdered by his father Gowardhandas. Gowardhandas was tried and convicted under Section 302, Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life. The conviction and sentence were upheld by the High Court.

2. The action was brought originally for Rs. 1,08,000/- as damages against Gowardhandas, Defendant, 1 (hereinafter called the Defendant). In the suit were also impleaded at the instance of the Defendant another daughter of the deceased Natwarlal from his first wife as Defendant 2, and, by order of the Court, the grandmother of the said Natwarlal as Defendant 3. Damages were claimed on the basis that Natwarlal would have lived to the age of sixty and "had a capacity and, efficiency to lay by not less than Rs. 300/- per month" net.

3. The defence was that the death of Natwarlal was not the result of murder by the father but was the result of suicide. The extent of damages was also denied on the plea that Natwarlal could hardly have made in his life more than Rs. 30 per mensem and this would hardly have sufficed him to maintain his wife and the children. It was asserted that in Natwarlal's death the Plaintiffs have lost nothing more than a meagre maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15/- per mensem only.

It was accordingly pleaded that even if the Defendant was responsible for the death of Natwarlal he could not be made liable to the Plaintiffs in damages for more than Rs. 15/- per month. It was denied that Natwarlal was in a state of normal health or that he would have lived up to the age of sixty. According to the Defendant, Natwarlal was suffering from acute pain In the abdomen which was considered by some medical men to be appendicitis.

4. The learned trial Judge found that the Defendant had murdered Natwarlal as alleged and that the former was liable to pay compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act. The learned Judge fixed the compensation at Rs. 9360/-. He arrived at this figure after holding that expectancy of the life of Natwarlal who was aged 30 at the time of his death was 15 years.

According to the learned Judge, Natwarlal would have earned Rs. 90/- per month and spent Rs. 65/- per month i.e. Rs. 780/- per year for the Plaintiffs as well as Defendant 2, his daughter by the first wife. Out of that sum the learned Trial Judge gave Rs. 2,000/- to Defendant 2 and he ordered the balance of Rs. 7360/- to be divided between the three Plaintiffs. The learned Judge held that the grandmother was not dependent upon Natwarlal and so was not entitled to a decree within the meaning of the Fatal Accidents Act.

5. The Defendant did not prefer any appeal against the decree of the trial Judge. The appeal is preferred by the three Plaintiffs claiming that the learned trial Judge was in error in finding that Natwarlal would have lived only up to the age of 45 years and also that Natwarlal's earning capacity was only Rs. 90/- per month. Though the Appellants reiterated the claim in the trial Court that Natwarlal's earning capacity was more than Rs. 300/- per month and he would have lived to the age of 60, the claim in appeal was limited to Rs. 30,000/- only.

6. xxx xxx xxx

7. The learned trial Judge found that Natwarlal was murdered by Defendant 1 and did not commit suicide. That finding is amply borne out by the evidence on record. (After discussing the evidence, the judgment proceeded:)

8. The evidence shows that Natwarlal was killed by the Defendant by firing a gun and did not commit suicide. The finding given by the learned trial Judge on this point was not seriously contested by the learned Counsel for the Respondent and we affirm it.

9. xxx xxx xxx

10. xxx xxx xxx

11. xxx xxx xxx

12. The chief points for decision then are:

(i) What was the expectancy of the life of the deceased Natwarlal?

(ii) What was the pecuniary benefit which he would have conferred upon the Defendant?

Natwar