Sri Lanka Law Reports
 2 Sri LR.
LOKUGE AND ANOTHERv.
SIRIWARDENE AND ANOTHER
SUPREME COURTG. P. S. DE SILVA, C.J.
S.C. APPEAL 29/95
C. COLOMBO 8113/MMAY 5, 1995.
Roman Dutch Law – Accident – Death of widowed mother – Right to support aMinor and an unmarried daughter – Computation of damages.
The widowed mother of the Plaintiffs died in an accident. The 1st Plaintiff anunmarried daughter and the 2nd plaintiff a minor son claimed damages. TheDistrict Court awarded Rs. 150,000/- to both Plaintiffs. On appeal the Court ofAppeal varied the award by disallowing the claim of the minor son for the reasonthat he was 18 years of age at the time of the accident and entitled to an orphansallowance until the age of 21; and thereafter obliged to support himself; the courtawarded Rs. 50,400/- to the 1st plaintiff.
After the exclusion of the claim of the 2nd Plaintiff, the computation of damageson the basis of loss of future support should be on the basis of an apportionmentof the deceased's income between the deceased and the 1st Plaintiff only.
Appeal from the Judgment of the Court of Appeal
Bimal Rajapakse for Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner.
Kumar Paul, S.C., for Respondents.
Cur. adv. vult
May 05, 1995.
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appealwhich varied the judgment of the District Court awarding a sum ofRs. 150,000/- to the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs.
Lokuge and Another v Siriwardene and Another (Kulatunga, J.)
The Court of Appeal held that the 2nd plaintiff who was the son ofthe deceased was not entitled to any damages for the reason that hewas 18 years of age at the time of the accident which resulted in thedeath of the deceased; that thereafter he was entitled to a paymentof an orphan’s allowance until the age of 21 years; and that thereafterhe was obliged to support himself. In regard to the 1st plaintiff whowas an unmarried daughter of the deceased, the Court of Appealheld that under the Roman Dutch Law she has a right to support fromher parents and that by reason of the death of the deceased who wasa widow at the age of 56, the 1st plaintiff qualified to the payment ofdamages.
The Court of Appeal next proceeded to compute damages and inthis respect took into account the fact that the deceased’s lifeexpectancy was 70 years; hence had the deceased lived, the 1stplaintiff would have received support for 14 years. In regard to thequantum of damages the Court of Appeal computed it on the basisthat the deceased’s income was Rs. 1134/- per month; and the courtwas of the view that she had spent about Rs. 300/- per month on the1st plaintiff. On that basis, the Court of Appeal awarded damages tothe 1st plaintiff in a sum of Rs. 3600/- per year for the period of 14years, aggregating Rs. 50,400/- with legal interest from the date ofplaint till payment in full.
We are of the view that the computation of damages in favour ofthe 1st plaintiff on the basis of an apportionment of Rs. 300/- out ofthe income of Rs. 1134/- which was the deceased’s pension, cannotbe supported. It is our view that after the exclusion of the claim of the2nd plaintiff, the computation of damages on the basis of loss offuture support should have been, in the circumstances of this case,on the basis of an apportionment between the deceased and the 1stplaintiff only. In this view of the matter, we hold that properapportionment should be in a sum of Rs. 600/- a month, in favour ofthe 1st plaintiff. The calculation of damages on this basis for a periodof 14 years at the rate of Rs. 7200/- per year would amount toRs. 100,800/-.
Mr. Paul, Learned State Counsel for the respondents very properlyagreed that this would be a reasonable basis of computation.
Sri Lanka Law Reports
 2 Sri L.R.
Mr. Rajapakse, Learned Counsel for the appellants is agreeable to anadjustment of the appeal on that basis, in favour of the 1st plaintiff.
We accordingly vary the award made by the Court of Appeal andenhance the payment of damages to a sum of Rs. 100,800/-, withlegal interest from the date of plaint till payment in full, in favour of the1st plaintiff. We direct that payment be made accordingly. Thus, onlythe 1st plaintiff succeeds in this appeal. We allow her appealaccordingly. The 2nd plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed. In thecircumstances, we make no order as to costs.
G. P. S. DE SILVA, C.J. -1 agree.
RAMANATHAN, J. -1 agree.
Appeal of the 1st plaintiff allowed.
Appeal of the 2nd plaintiff dismissed.