https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182721 Negligent driving was inferred from the accident's physical features, the bus's course, witness evidence, and excessive speed; the explanation of a sudden mechanical failure was rejected, and the owner was vicariously liable because the driver acted in the course of employment. Damages under section 1 of the Fatal Accidents Act were assessed on the dependants' pecuniary loss and were not excessive on the facts, given the deceased's age, earnings, and family responsibilities. The amounts under sections 1 and 2 were distinct heads of loss, so no deduction was required to avoid duplication. The compensation award was maintained. en-us Fri, 14 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 May 2016 14:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182721 Negligent driving was inferred from the accident's physical features, the bus's course, witness evidence, and excessive speed; the explanation of a sudden mechanical failure was rejected, and the owner was vicariously liable because the driver acted in the course of employment. Damages under section 1 of the Fatal Accidents Act were assessed on the dependants' pecuniary loss and were not excessive on the facts, given the deceased's age, earnings, and family responsibilities. The amounts under sections 1 and 2 were distinct heads of loss, so no deduction was required to avoid duplication. The compensation award was maintained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 14 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182721