Report No. 111
8.4. Analysis by Supreme Court.-
The Supreme Court had occasion to compare the contents of sections 1 and 2, and observed as follows1:-
"The cause of action under section 1 and that under section 2 are different. While, under section 1, damages are recoverable for the benefit of the persons mentioned therein, under section 2 compensation goes to the benefit of the estate whereas under section 1 damages are payable in respect of loss sustained by the persons mentioned therein, under section 2 damages own be claimed inter alia for loss of expectation of life. Though in some cases parties that are entitled to compensation under both the sections may happen to be the same persons, they need not necessarily be not persons entitled to benefit under section 1 may be different from those claiming under section 2. prima facie as the two claims are to be based upon different causes of action, the claimants, whether the same or different, would be entitled to recover compensation separately under both the heads.
If a person taking benefit under both the sections is the same, he cannot be permitted to recover twice over for the same loss. In awarding damages under both the heads, there shall not be duplication of the same claim, that is, if any part of the compensation representing the loss to the estate goes into the calculation of the personal loss under section 1, that portion shall be excluded in giving compensation under section 2 and vice versa."
1. Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswani, AIR 1962 SC 1.
8.5. It is settled law that under the Fatal Accidents Act the liability under section 1 and the liability under section 2 are distinct, different and independent.1 Under section 1, damages are recoverable for the benefit of persons mentioned therein as loss sustained by them. In contract, under section 2, damages are awarded for the recoupment of the pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased as a result of the accident. The two claims are based upon different causes of action and the claimants would be entitled to recover compensation separately under both the heads. If, however, the person who takes benefit under section 1 happens to be the same person as entitled to compensation under section 2, there cannot be duplication of the same claim and compensation awarded under section 2 for the loss of the estate of the deceased will be taken into account in the calculation of the compensation payable to the claimants under section 1. The claim thus relates to economic loss.2-3-4
1. Mahim v. Sayari Bai, AIR 1973 Mad 83 (88).
2. K.C.S. lyer v. T.K. Nair, AIR 1970 SC 373 (376, 377), para. 4.
3. Bai Nanda v. Patel Shivabhan, ILR 1966 Guj 500.
4. Engineers International v. Hanumantha Raju, (1974) 1 MLJ 37.