| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1963 SLG 3422 = 1963 SLD 3422 = 1963 PLD 290 |
Dacca High Court
First Appeal No. 88 of 1958, decided on 21st July 1961.
Presented By: Chowdhury, C. J. and Idris, J
Maksumul Hakim and A. M. Chowdhury for Appellant. M. A. Rouf for
Respondents.
First Appeal No. 88 of 1958, decided on 21st July 1961.
Presented By: Chowdhury, C. J. and Idris, J
Maksumul Hakim and A. M. Chowdhury for Appellant. M. A. Rouf for
Respondents.
MANMATHA NATH KURI---Appellant
VERSUS
MUHAMMAD MOKHLESUR RAHMAN AND ANOTHER---Respondent
Law: Fatal Accidents Act, 1855
Section:
Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1855), S. I-Death of girl aged 6 years-Parents claiming damages-Girl having no earnings in past, no certainty of earning in future "Pecuniary advantage to beneficiaries" includes rendering of service in past or future Damages on sentimental grounds cannot be allowed Assessing damages Normal expectation, reasonable probability, prospective loss Matters of inference Damages Accurate estimation impossible Factors to be considered Normal age assessed as 60 years - Shares of beneficiaries divided by appellate Court though required to be apportioned by lower Court. Mohammad Ibrahim v. Latif P L D 1957 Kar. 352 disting uished, Decree-Against master and servant for negligent act of servant in master's employment-Decree can be altered where only master is party in appeal. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, r. I -Plaint Not stating requirement of Fatal Accidents Act, 1850-Other state ments along with evidence led, held, sufficient compliance in the circumstances. JUDGMENT CHOWDHURY, C. J.-I had the advantage of going through the judgment proposed to be delivered by my learned brother in this appeal. I entirely agree with the same. I like to add only a few words. The only case relied on by the learned Advocate for the appellant is that of KhanSahib Mohammad Ibrahim and another v. Latif and others (P L D 1958 Kar. 34), in support of his contention that in a case for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act a distinction has to be made between a speculative possibility of pecuniary benefit and a reasonable possibility of pecuniary advantage from the continuance of the life of the victim of the accident, and that in the present case at least the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge is based on speculative possibility of pecuniary benefit. It is not necessary that the victim must be shown to have been earning something.What is necessary is the reasonable expectation of the claimant. If that is not so, an impossible situation will arise in that in case of fatal accident of an earning person there will be a liability under the Act and in the case of non-earning person there will…