Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Fiji Law Reports

Chand v Pradeep [2001] FJLawRp 18; [2001] 1 FLR 83 (23 February 2001)

GYAN CHAND v PRADEEP & SALESH KRISHNA GOUNDER

High Court Civil Jurisdiction

Compensation to Relatives Act – Assessment of damages – degree of dependence a father has on a 14½ year old daughter – appropriate multiplier – lost years - loss of expectation of life – funeral expenses - Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provision) (Death and Interest) Act; Compensation to Relatives Act s4

The Plaintiff sues as administrator of the estate of his late daughter, who died in a fatal accident. His 14½ daughter was an above average student, who, being his youngest and only remaining daughter at home, did all the housework. Since her death, it necessitated his wife staying home to do housework, rather than assisting him at the farm. The Court assessed her yearly income at $3000/annum, and using an appropriate multiplier of 17, awarded damages for lost years at $25,500.00. Since the Plaintiff's action was based on loss of financial support, the Court did not award any solatium for mental anguish. Her financial contribution was said to be dependent on chances of her staying home and changes that might have affected her and her parents, in this case, the Court assessed her father was dependent on his daughter at about $200/annum until she turned 17. The Court fixed the multiplicand at $760 and multiplier at 10 years and awarded $7,600 as pecuniary loss. The Court found her contribution to the family would have been about $1500 until age 25.

Held – It is difficult in a case such as this to determine the degree of dependence of the Plaintiff on his 14½ year old daughter. Under the Compensation to Relatives Act section 4 a father is entitled to claim as a dependant, as here based upon financial loss or loss of support but no solatium for mental distress. Using a multiplier at 10 years, and a multiplicand of 760, $7,600 awarded for pecuniary loss. For damages awarded under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Death and Interest) Act, a multiplier of 17 is appropriate for a damages award of (a) $25,500 for lost years; (b) $2,500 for loss of expectation of life and interest at 6% per annum for 3 years. Funeral expenses of $1,000 for coffin box and 13 days of prayer, being reasonable, is allowed.

Damages assessed in the sum of $41,050 plus costs.

Cases referred in Judgment

Foll Abdul Hafeez Ismail v Medical Superintendent and Attorney-General HBC310/98S
Bamett v Cohew & Others (1921) 2 KB 461
Blake v Midland Rly Co. [1852] EngR 10; (1852) 18 QB 93
Buckland v Guildford Gas Light and Coke Ltd (1949) 1 KB 410
Cons Daya Ram v Peni Cara & Ors (1983) 29 FLR 147
Franklin v South Eastern Rly Co [1858] EngR 669; (1858) 3 H & N 211
Rajend Kumar and Anjini Lata v Mohammed Aziz and ATS HBC 0033/97L
Rupeni Navunisaravi v Pradeep Kumar and Raja Ram (1994) 40 FLR 58
Sunil Chandra v Ram Narain ABU 0051/96S

Rajendra Chaudhary for the Plaintiff
No Appearance by the Defendants

Prakash, J

This is an action by the Plaintiff under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provision) (Death and Interest) Act Cap. 27 and the Compensation to Relatives Act Cap 29. He sues as the Administrator of the Estate of his daughter Arpna Sanyogita. Letters of Administration were granted to him by the High Court on 16/08/96.

The Defendants were duly served. No statements of Defence were filed and served by the Defendants. Judgment was entered against the Defendants on 27 April 2000. The hearing was only concerned with the assessment of damages and costs.

The Plaintiff tendered the Letters of Administration, the Birth Certificate and the Death Certificate of the deceased Arpna Sanyogita. According to (PW1) he had four (4) children who are over 21 years except for the deceased who was about 14½ years at her death. She was born on 14th January 1982 and died on 26/07/96 due to the fatal accident. She was a Form 3 student at her death. The Plaintiff was a taxi driver and also doing share farming on a sugar cane farm. He earned about $2,000 per annum from the farm. His wife assisted in the farm. His eldest daughter was married in 1994. The deceased was his only remaining daughter. She used to do housework when his wife worked in the farm. He used to spend about $250 per year on farm labour before. Since his wife stopped farm work this had increased to about $400 per year According to the Plaintiff the deceased was a healthy girl with no sickness or disease. The Plaintiff spent $1,000 for her funeral expenses - this included cost of coffin box, the priest and 13 days of prayer etc. He was further claiming damages and compensation, interest and costs.

Plaintiff's wife (PW2) essentially corroborated the Plaintiff's evidence. She confirmed that the deceased did the housework - clean, cook and wash clothes—before her death. She does not go to the farm nowadays because she has to do all the housework.

PW3 was Rakeshni Lata Chand, who was a neighbour of the deceased and her family. She went to the same school as the deceased from Class 1 to Form 3 after the deceased died. She left school in 1999 after completing Fiji School Leaving Certificate. She was working in the city since February 2000 and was earning $50.00 nett per week. In her Secondary Entrance Exam she had got 372/500 marks.
PW4 was a school Teacher who had taught the deceased in Primary School. He had taught for 9 years. He had taught the deceased in Classes 1 and 8. She was one amongst 35 students. According to him she was an above average student. She had no disciplinary problems and was an obedient child. According to him she could have become a nurse or salesgirl. He tendered her eight year exam results, certified by the Head Teacher of the school. The deceased got 360/500 for English and best 4 subjects. He had also taught PW3 with the deceased.

No submissions were filed in Court by Plaintiff Counsel though some authorities were provided.

The particulars of claim under the two relevant statutes are claimed in the following terms:

i) Damages under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provision) (Death and Interest) Act Cap 27.

ii) Damages under the Compensation to Relatives Act Cap 29.

iii) Funeral expenses $1000:00

iv) Interest

v) Costs of the action.

The principles applicable and distinctions in assessing quantum under the above two statutes have been discussed in various cases. I note in particular the following Daya Ram v Peni Cara & others FCA Civil App 59/82 (29 FLR 147); Rupeni Navunisaravi v Pradeep Kumar and Raja Ram (1994) 40 FLR 58; Sunil Chandra v Ram Narain f/n Ram Garib & Others FCA Civil App ABU 0051N.96S.

Under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provision) (Death and Interest) Act Cap 27 the calculation is for "lost years" award (see cases cited above and Rajend Kumar and Anjini Lata v Mohammed Aziz and ATS Ltk High Court Action No HBC0033 of 1997L) As stated by Speight J.A. in Daya Ram (opcit) the claims for lost years under this Act is well established. The deceased was about 14½ year old student at her death. According to the evidence she was a healthy child not suffering from any disease. She was an above average student who could have become a nurse or a salesgirl, according to her primary school teacher. Her colleague in school was now a salesgirl earning $50 nett per week. In the Courts view given the lack of evidence it can at best assess the deceased yearly income at $3000.00 per annum. Out of this one half would be for self expenses. An appropriate multiplier given her age and circumstances would be 17 years. As such the damages for lost years would be $25,500.00. For loss of expectation of life, following recent cases I award $2500 (see authorities cited in Abdul Hafeez Ismail v The Medical Superintendent and A-G (Civil Action HBC310/98S). For funeral expenses the claim for $1000 is reasonable, and is allowed.

Under the Compensation to Relatives Act (Section 4) the Plaintiff, as father, is entitled to claim as a dependant. This action is based upon financial loss or loss of support and nothing else; it gives no solatium for mental distress (Blake v Midland Rly Co. [1852] EngR 10; (1852) 18 QB 93). As Pathik J. has stated:

"Loss of support to some degree is an essential element of the cause of action. None of the relatives can succeed unless they can prove actual dependence on the deceased at or before his death, or a probability that they would have received some support from him in future if he had lived ... (Rupeni Navunisaravi opcit p62).

Further, "it is not necessary for the Plaintiff to prove that he had a right to support by the deceased, what he must establish is 'a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit, as of right or otherwise, from the continuance of life' (Franklin v South Eastern Rly Co [1858] EngR 669; (1858) 3 H & N 211). The Court has to decide on the amount of dependency (multiplicand) of the Plaintiff parent and a suitable multiplier, (see Daya Ram) (opcit).

It is difficult in a case such as this to determine the degree of dependence of the Plaintiff on his 14½ year old daughter. However, it is clear from the evidence and other cases that a parent can be dependent on his/her children. In Bamett v Cohew & Others [1921] 2 KB 461 the deceased was four years old and the Court made an award. In the case of Buckland v Guildford Gas Light and Coke Ltd (1949) 1 KB 410, involving a 13 year old girl the Court stated: "She assisted her parents in the home and it was anticipated that her would later have enabled her to contribute financially as well as by services to the household. The extent to which she could and would have done so must be considered with due regard to all the chances and changes that might have affected her and also her parents".

In the Courts view the Plaintiff was dependant on the deceased for about $200 per annum until she was 17 years that is, until completing her Fiji School Leaving Certificate. From then she would have worked and earned about $3000 per annum she would have contributed at least $1500 to her family until she married at about 25 years. Doing the best it can on the available evidence and making some mathematical calculations I would fix the multiplicand at $760 and multiplier at 10 years. As such the Court will award a sum of $7,600 as pecuniary loss to the Plaintiff.

In summary the Court awards damages as follows:

Costs for this action is summarily assessed at $400.00.

Damages awarded.

Marie Chan