JUDGMENTBY: WINSLOW J

(delivering the judgment of the court): This is an appeal against that part of the decision of Choor Singh J. given on 3rd May, 1968 which determined the quantum of the award herein to be the sum of$ 29,904 for the widow, her three children and the parents of the deceased who died in a motor accident as a consequence of the negligence of the appellant in early September 1966.

Counsel for the appellant contended that this award is manifestly excessive having regard to the evidence adduced on the respondents behalf with regard to the earnings of the deceased.

The only evidence regarding the loss of pecuniary benefits on the part of the defendants was that of the widow of the deceased who claimed that her husband gave her $ 10 per day for household expenses from his earnings as a "pow" seller carrying on business in a coffee-shop near the Redhill market. She said that, out of this amount, she paid a rent of $ 31 per month for the two rooms occupied by her and the other dependants, including the parents, in Paya Lebar Road. Her deceased husband had his meals outside except for breakfast which cost her about $ 10 per month. The parents had all their meals with her. She also claimed that her husband did smoke but did not drink or pay income tax. Her husband was self-employed but his younger brother used to assist him in the "pow" business which he had been carrying on for the preceding two years. She had no personal knowledge of how her husband ran his business or what profits he made nor was the brother or any of the four employees, whom her husband was supposed to have had to assist him in the business, called to give evidence. After the husbands death, his younger brother took over the business but according to the widow, the brother was not doing too well in the business because "pows" were no longer in good demand and his profits were marginal. When asked whether her brother-in-law paid her anything at all every month, she said that he had no money to spare. The court is therefore left with only her bare statement that she received $ 10 per day from her husband to assist it in calculating the value of the dependency claim on the basis of the loss to the dependants of the pecuniary benefits they could reasonably expect to receive had the deceased continued to live.

It should be remembered that her husband owned a motor-cycle which was involved in the accident and that he presumably used this motor-cycle for the purpose of transporting himself between Paya Lebar Road where he lived and his place of business near the Redhill market which is at the other end of the city. He must have incurred expenses in connection with the maintenance of this vehicle including petrol, tax and insurance and also on all his other meals and on tobacco. There is no evidence as to whether these expenses came out of the $ 10 per day which the widow said she received or whether these were paid for separately by him out of his profits. In these circumstances it was all the more important that evidence should have been led as to his profits from his business so as to satisfy the court that he could genuinely have afforded to give his wife $ 10 per day as claimed by her because these additional expenses could well have amounted to something like $ 75 per month at least.

Choor Singh J. made an award based on the loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependants at the rate of $ 200 per month spread over a 20-year period since the deceased was 28 years of age at the time of his death and the widow was then 23. He took into account, according to his grounds of judgment, the submission that as the widow was only 25 years of age when he delivered judgment, she might re-marry. She has three sons by the deceased who were aged 5, 4 and 1 at his death.

It does not seem to us, in view of the fact that the deceased was only 28 years old when he died, that a computation based on a purchase of 20 years is unreasonable even if one takes into a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document