Judgment :- Udayabhanu, J. The appellants in A.S. No.56/1990 are the defendants in O.S.No.175/84, the suit filed by the wife on behalf of the minor son as well, of the deceased Jose who was murdered on 10-7-81 by the defendants in furtherance of their common intention to eliminate him. The Sessions Judge convicted the 4th defendant for life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and the same was confirmed by the High Court. The rest of the defendants who were accused in the Sessions Case were acquitted by the trial court itself. A sum of Rs.6 lakhs is claimed as compensation from the defendants for the lose sustained by the plaintiffs due to the untimely death of the husband of the 1st plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge, after considering the evidence adduced in the matter that consisted of the testimony of PWs. 1 to 8. DW-1, Exts.A1 to A15, Ext.B1 and Ext.X1 and X2, awarded a sum of Rs.96,000/-. 2. The 4th defendant who was convicted for murder of Jose died in incarceration in 1986, during the pendency of the suit. The 1st defendant also died while the present appeal was pending. Defendants 2 and 3 were recorded as legal representatives of the deceased defendants. 3. The appellants have challenged the findings of the lower court alleging grossly distorted appreciation of facts involved and application of misconceived notions of law in the process of adjudication. It was pointed out that only 4th defendant was found guilty by the Sessions Judge and hence the rest of the defendants are in no way liable. It was stressed that the 1st plaintiff got remarried and hence she is not entitled for any amount of compensation. The appellants have also found fault with the lower court with respect to the assessment of compensation as well, as it is far excessive. 4. The appellants in A.S.205/94 are the plaintiffs who are aggrieved with the allegedly low amount of compensation awarded and has called for a reconsideration and reappraisal of the entire matter of calculation of compensation. 5. The points to be determined are: i. Whether all the defendants/appellants in A.S.56/90 are responsible for the death of the husband of the 1st plaintiff/respondent? ii. Whether the plaintiffs/respondents in A.S.56/90 are entitled for compensation? iii. 5. The points to be determined are: i. Whether all the defendants/appellants in A.S.56/90 are responsible for the death of the husband of the 1st plaintiff/respondent? ii. Whether the plaintiffs/respondents in A.S.56/90 are entitled for compensation? iii. If so, whether the amount awarded is liable to be enhanced as contended by the appellant in A.S.225/91 or to be reduced as pleaded by the appellants in A.S.56/90? 6. Point No.1: At the outset, it is to be noted that the plaintiffs and defendants are close relatives neighbours, the mother of the deceased Jose is the sister of the 1st defendant. 2nd defendant is the wife of the 1st defendant and 3rd and 4th defendants are the sons of defendants 1 and 2. As already noted, the incident that culminated in the homicide of Jose took place on 10-7-81. The 2nd plaintiff, the minor son, was just 4 months old then. It has come out in evidence that the 1st plaintiff married Jose on 25-5-80. she remarried on 26-5-85 and was having two more children at the time of trial of the suit. Fourth defendant who was sentenced for life imprisonment was then aged 21 years. 7. The evidence adduced in support of the involvement and responsibility of the defendants in the incident mainly consisted of the testimony of PW-1, the 1st plaintiff and PW-6 Mary, the mother of the deceased Jose. Both of them witnessed the incident. PW-4, the Circle Inspector of Police who investigated the criminal case and PW-6, the medical officer who conducted the post mortem of the deceased; and PW-7 another doctor who recorded the wound certificate of the 2nd defendant were also examined. The F.I.R., charge sheet, the scene mahazar, post mortem certificate, statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the judgment of the Sessions Court in S.C.58/82 as well as the copy of the judgment of the High Court in the appeal were also produced. DW-1, the 1st defendant, who died during the pendency of the present appeal has also testified to counter the case set up by the plaintiffs. 8. DW-1, the 1st defendant, who died during the pendency of the present appeal has also testified to counter the case set up by the plaintiffs. 8. PW-1, Jessy the 1st plaintiff has deposed that the incident took place in the residential property of the defendants on the particular day in the day time at about 11 a.m. The Cattle owned by the mother of the deceased happen to stray into the compound of the defendants and the defendants tied the cattle on a coconut tree. PW-8, the mother of the deceased was not permitted to release the cattle. Although she asked for the assistance of her son Jose, he refused. Thereafter, PW-6 proceeded to the spot with a chopper to cut the rope with which the cows were tied together. Soon thereafter, on noticing a commotion, PW-1 herself and her husband and the elder brother of her husband and his wife rushed to the scene to see PW-8 being restrained by the defendants, when her husband tried to release the mother, the 1st defendant Francis threw chilly powder directed at his eyes and 3rd defendant Ittiechan struck him with an iron rode on his head. The 3rd defendant also stabbed on the back of PW-8, the mother. When the deceased Jose fell down, the 4th defendant Joseph stabbed him on the left side of his chest. Jose managed to reach the house of his maternal uncle Paul nearby. Then he was taken to the hospital. PW-1 has also stated that Avarachan, the elder brother of her husband as well as his mother Mary also sustained injuries. Avarachan had stab wounds. Jose breathed his last immediately on reaching the hospital. Her statement was recorded by the police. PW-1 has reiterated in the cross examination that the defendants inflicted stab injuries and cut injuries on the deceased 2nd defendant, the wife of the 1st defendant handed over the arms to the other defendants. She has also stated that the deceased was repeatedly inflicted cut wounds. It was the stab injury on the left side of the chest that cause the death of Jose. She has further stated in the cross examination that there was an existing dispute with respect to the share due to the mother of Jose. She has also stated that the deceased was repeatedly inflicted cut wounds. It was the stab injury on the left side of the chest that cause the death of Jose. She has further stated in the cross examination that there was an existing dispute with respect to the share due to the mother of Jose. She has pleaded ignorance as to the suggestion that Paul, another maternal uncle of the deceased who is living adjacent, had obtained an order of injunction against them prohibiting entry into his property. She has answered in the cross examination that four cows belonging to the deceased had entered the compound of the defendants. According to her, the mother was attempted to be restrained by tying her with a rope on a coconut tree. The mother was crying aloud. She has further explained that a chopper was also lying on the ground with which 3rd defendant inflicted cut injury on the deceased after dropping iron rode with which he struck him. It was on hearing the distress call of the mother that they rushed to the place. She was examined in the Sessions Court as PW-4. When confronted that she has not mentioned in her examination that 3rd defendant struck Jose with iron rod, she has answered that much of details were not asked at that time. It was also put to her that she has not mentioned in the Sessions Court that part of the incident that chilly powder was thrown on Jose by 1st defendant. Ext.B1, the copy of her version in the Sessions Court was put to her. She has asserted that she has stated in her testimony in the criminal trial that she saw the mother being attempted to be tied with a rope, in reply to the suggestion that she has not stated so. She has also stated that the mother had cried aloud calling the name of Jose. She has also stated in the cross examination that the 1st defendant also did hit the mother with a stick. It was clarified in the reexamination that 2nd defendant, the wife of 1st defendant was repeatedly saying at that time that everybody should be killed and that it was a chopper that 2nd defendant handed over to the other defendants. 9. The other direct testimony with respect to the incident is that of PW-8 Mary, the mother of Jose. It was clarified in the reexamination that 2nd defendant, the wife of 1st defendant was repeatedly saying at that time that everybody should be killed and that it was a chopper that 2nd defendant handed over to the other defendants. 9. The other direct testimony with respect to the incident is that of PW-8 Mary, the mother of Jose. She has mentioned that herself and her family were not in good terms with the defendants on account of the dispute with respect to the sharing of the property of their mother. Paul, her another brother, had obtained an order of injunction against her restraining her from taking the cows for grazing into his compound. Cows used to be taken to the properties of 1st defendant and Paul. That particular day, the cows had entered the compound of 1st defendant who in turn tied them on a coconut tree. When she attempted to unite. 1st defendant obstructed her. She went back and sought the help of her son, who declined to intervene. She then took a chopper and went to the place and attempted to cut the ropes but he defendants restrained her by attempting to tie her also with the rope. When she cried out, the deceased came to her rescue and released her. It was then that the 3rd defendant Ittiechan hit him on the head and 1st defendant threw chilly powder. Fourth defendant Joseph stabbed him. Blood was gushing out. She fell on the body of her son and pleaded not to harm him further. She also sustained stab injuries on her head, hands and on the back. 1st defendant also struck her with a stick. 2nd defendant, the wife of 1st defendant supplied the weapon and also called out to kill them. Her another son Avarachan also came too the spot. He was also stabbed by the defendants. He also fell down. 10. PW-4 the Circle Inspector of Police has proved Ext.A6 charge sheet in the case charged against the defendants under Section 323, 234, 307 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Ext.A7 F.I.R. PW-6 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy and recorded Ext.A14 post mortem certificate. PW-7 doctor who recorded wound certificate of 2nd defendant, one of the accused, has proved Ext.A15 wound certificate. 11. The version of the incident that ended up in the death of Jose as narrated by PW-1. PW-7 doctor who recorded wound certificate of 2nd defendant, one of the accused, has proved Ext.A15 wound certificate. 11. The version of the incident that ended up in the death of Jose as narrated by PW-1. the 1st plaintiff and PW-8, the mother of the deceased Jose is in accordance with the allegation in Ext.A6 charge sheet and Ext.Exgt.A7 F.I.R. The Sessions Judge as per Ext.A1 judgment found the 4th defendant herein, guilty of the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder but acquitted the rest of the accused/defendants as the joint responsibility alleged was found not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The contention of the appellants/defendants placing reliance on the judgment of the Sessions Court which was upheld by the High Court, in support of the pleading that at best only the 4th defendant can be held liable for the death of Jose cannot be accepted as such in the light of the established proposition of law that the judgment in the criminal case is admissible only to the extend of factum of charge and conviction and that the conclusions drawn are not binding vide Section 43 of the Evidence Act. It is a settled position that so far as the civil court is concerned, the judgment of the criminal court convicting a person of the crime is not proof of the fact as such. So also the judgment of acquittal is irrelevant in a civil suit based on the same cause of action. The decision of the Supreme Court in Premshanker v. I.G. of Police, (2002 (3) KLT 389 (SC) restates the law in this regard. 12. It is pertinent to note that no specific case of self defence has been set up in the cross examination of PWs 1 and 8 or pleaded in the written statement. The stress in the cross examination of PWs 1 and 6 is on the aspect of the income of the deceased regarding calculation of damages and not as to the incident as such. 13. The evidence of DW-1, the 1st defendant himself, one of the accused in the criminal case, is that he was not at the spot at all. He was having a hap at the time i.e. around 11 a.m. and it was the 2nd defendant herein who woke him up. 13. The evidence of DW-1, the 1st defendant himself, one of the accused in the criminal case, is that he was not at the spot at all. He was having a hap at the time i.e. around 11 a.m. and it was the 2nd defendant herein who woke him up. By the time he was proceeding to the spot, his sons were returning, presumably after a wash of their body, as their dress were found wet. The evidence of DW-1 is not supported and is at odds with the rest of the evidence adduced. The wound certificate of the 2nd defendant (accused) No.4 in the criminal case) shows injuries on her person although the alleged cause is different. We find that the preponderance of evidence is squarely in favour of the case set up by the plaintiffs and hence we find no reason to deviate from the findings of the lower court in this regard. The point is held against the appellants in A.S.No.56/1990. 14. Point Nos.2 and 3: the liability as per the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 is not open to dispute. The counsel for the appellants/defendants has raised a feeble contention on the basis of the common law maxim, ‘actio personalls moritur cum persona’ (a personal right of action dies with the person). The contention is absolutely merities in view of Section IA of the Fatal Accidents Act 1855 which specifically rules out the application of the above maxim in the cases of this nature. It is made clear that civil liability will be fastened on any person who committed the wrongful act or actively aided or abetted its commission and thereby took part directly in committing it. The Division Bench of this Court in Madan Gopal v. Dr. Rugmini, (1988(2) KLT 4412) has well construed the law on the point. The Kerala Torts (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1976 also makes it clear that on the death of any person, all causes of action subsisting against or vested in him shall survive for the benefit of his estate. The lower court has considered the testimony of PWs 1, 8, 2, 3, and 5 as well as that of DW-1 to the contra that the annual income of the deceased who was aged only 28 at the time of the death, would come to Rs.800/- per month. The lower court has considered the testimony of PWs 1, 8, 2, 3, and 5 as well as that of DW-1 to the contra that the annual income of the deceased who was aged only 28 at the time of the death, would come to Rs.800/- per month. Of course, the appellants/plaintiffs in A.S.205/95 have alleged that the income calculated is too low and half of his income deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased is too high. The appellants in A.S.56/90 have assailed that the multiplier adopted is exorbitantly high. As per the guidelines, i.e. after the commencement of the 1994 amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the incorporation of the structured formula and the apex court judgment in UPSRTC v. Trilok Chandra (1996 (2) KLT 218 (SC), the maximum multiplier can be only 18. So also the notional income has to be taken at Rs.1500/- per month ; and only 1/3 is liable too be deducted for personal expenditure. We particularly take note of the fact that the decision of the lower court was rendered in March 1989 in the suit of 1984. Further more, the statute does not contemplate the application of any rigid mathematical formula. 15. In the above backdrop, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the lower court. We find that the income calculated by the lower court can be accepted as reasonable expectation of the benefit to the plaintiffs had the deceased been alive and not just a mere speculativie possibility. The evidence of PWs. 1, 8, 2, 3, and 5 as to the income of the deceased is not liable to be discarded as such just because they are friends and relatives. 16. The 1st plaintiff married after 4 years of the incident. We find that she is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the loss of dependency for the above period. The second plaintiff, a minor son, would be entitled for the rest of the amount of Rs.96,000/- awarded as compensation less Rs.10,000/-. The persons who inherited assets of the deceased 1st and 4th defendants will be liable to the extend of the assets. The defendants will be jointly and severally liable to the amount of the compensation. The points are held accordingly. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. The interest and cost will be as ordered by the lower court. The persons who inherited assets of the deceased 1st and 4th defendants will be liable to the extend of the assets. The defendants will be jointly and severally liable to the amount of the compensation. The points are held accordingly. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. The interest and cost will be as ordered by the lower court. There will be no order as to costs in the respective appeals.