BEST IELTS General Reading Test 473

BEST IELTS General Reading Test 473

IELTS General Reading Test

Damages for Accidents

A. Loss of life is indeed irrevocable. Nevertheless, to maintain the sanctity of a legal order, an attempt is made to devise some mechanism to compensate even if the loss is irreversible and, therefore, irreparable. This is the enigma that the law courts and the legislature are trying to resolve by evolving principles of compensation.

B. The most basic principle, evolved on the analogy of commercial contracts, is that the person, who has suffered loss on account of some accident, should be put in the same position by awarding him compensatory damages as if the negligent or tortuous act had not been committed at all! But what about the loss in case of death of school students who themselves are dependant upon their parents?

IELTS General Reading Test

Most seemingly, the children bestow upon their parents a lot of love and affection and provide them emotional support and satisfaction, but all that deprivation and pain and suffering caused to them due to their accidental death is incalculable in money. What pecuniary loss the parents have suffered by the untimely demise of their children? Lord Atkinson responded to this interrogative about a century ago when he observed in an English case Taff Vale Rly Co .v .Jenkins, (1911-13) All England Reporter.

“In case of the death of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by its parents during the child’s lifetime. But this does not necessarily bar the parents’ claim and prospective loss will found a valid claim provided that the parents establish that they had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child had lived.”

IELTS General Reading Test

C. The “prospective pecuniary expectation loss” proposition has been adopted and developed by the Indian courts into at least two basic principles of pecuniary damages and non-pecuniary damages. The first one attempts to compensate, what is termed as, the “dependency loss” of the parents in future. This is the compensation for the loss of money support in terms of money. The second principle attempts to compensate non-pecuniary damages, say, in the form of incalculable loss of love and affection as distinct from the money loss, but again in terms of money. In both cases, the only measure for determining damages is that the awarded amount should be adequate, just and reasonable.

In the application of these principles, however, the compensatory amount vastly varied. Extreme variation even within one and the same jurisdiction is disturbing. Surely, compensation award is intended neither to be a “bonanza,” largesse,” or “a source of profit,” nor “a pittance” to become an apology for compensation. This is how the Supreme Court has recently lamented in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009). True, this is due to the number of imponderables involved. Nonetheless, such a spectacle weakens the rule of law if we continue to remain in the realm of uncertainties.

IELTS General Reading Test

D. To bring certainty and uniformity, the Supreme Court, in the course of its judicial decision-making, has evolved “the multiplier method” for the award of pecuniary compensation, and the concept of “conventional amount” for the award for non-pecuniary compensation. The Multiplier method is based upon the principle that the claimant must be paid a capital sum which would yield sufficient interest income to provide material benefits of the same standard and duration as the deceased would have provided for the dependents if he had lived and capital earned.

In the calculation of this capital sum, there are involved a number of variables, such as how much personal and living expenses need to be deducted while calculating the yearly loss of dependency, how much effect is given to the future prospects of the deceased, inflation, and general price rise that erodes value and purchasing power of money, how to decide and determine the suitable multiplier on the basis of length of dependency, how to discount for contingencies and uncertainties, et al. Over the years, the courts have standardised the value of various variables by keeping in view the profile of a relatively stable economy.

IELTS General Reading Test

E. Likewise, the concept of “conventional sum”, which is paid for loss of life and not loss of future pecuniary prospects, is standardised. This is done by fixing an appropriate amount that the society considers just and proper and which is quite independent of financial position of the victim or the claimant, but dependant on the capacity and the ability of the deceased to provide happiness to the claimant.

Look at the following statements (questions 28-30) and the list of compensation methods below.

Match each statement with the correct compensation method, A-D.

Write the correct letter, A-D, in boxes 28-30 on your answer sheet. 28.

28. A system in which the dependent is given a sum enough to provide as much material comfort as the deceased would have provided.

29. A system in which a justifiable amount is paid according to social norms and not considering the future pecuniary prospects.

30. The money that is paid to the parents for loss of their future financial dependency.

IELTS General Reading Test

A. Pecuniary damages

B. Multiplier method

C. Conventional sum

Choose NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS from the passage for each answer.

Link compensation to the cost of living

Life is precious and its loss is (31)…………. According to the most fundamental rule, the person who has suffered loss should be paid a (32)………….that can put him in the same (33)………….as if the accident has not happened. However, problems arise when parents seek compensation for the demise of their children. What (34)…………. Loss have parents suffered by the untimely demise of their children? According to law experts, parents can seek compensation for “(35)…………. expectation loss” if they are able to establish that they had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefits from the deceased.

IELTS General Reading Test

Complete each sentence with the correct ending, A-F, below.

Write the correct letter, A-F.

36. As per the most basic principle, such compensation should be provided that the affected person can live as if

37. Parents’ claim for compensation for prospective loss due to their child’s death can be valid if

38. According to multiplier method, interest from compensation should provide the same standard of living as if

IELTS General Reading Test

A. it is more than what the deceased would have given to the claimant

B. they are able to prove that they had reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit from the deceased child

C. dependent the deceased person would have provided to the

D. the accident has not happened

IELTS General Reading Test

Choose the correct letter, A, B, C or D.

39. Which of the following is not correct about Conventional sum?

A. The amount is justifiable as per social norms

B. Financial position of the victim is not taken into consideration

C. Future financial prospects are not considered

D. The demised person’s ability to provide comfort to the dependent is not considered.

40. Which is not a consideration in Multiplier method?

A. Duration of the dependency

B. Rise in the price of goods

C. Possibility of uncertainties

D. The future prospects of the claimant

IELTS General Reading Test

SEE MORE POSTS>>

BEST IELTS General Reading Test 473

Get Latest IELTS Books

IELTS General Reading Test

28. B

29. C

30. A

31. IRREVOCABLE//IRREVERSIBLE//IRREPARABLE

32. COMPENSATION

33. POSITION

34. PECUNIARY

35. PROSPECTIVE PECUNIARY LOSS

36. D

37. B

38. C

39. D

40. D

IELTS General Reading Test

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

0 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Best Hot Selling Books | Get Discount upto 20%

X
error: Content is protected !!
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x