JUDGMENT
N.N. Mithal and N.L. Ganguli, JJ.
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, by the owners of the two vehicles which were involved in the accident in which the husband of the respondent No. 1, Lalmani Misra, was seriously injured, to which he ultimately succumbed. A claim petition was filed by the widow and four children for award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,30,000/-. We have gone through the award of the Claims Tribunal and also looked into the record of the case.
2. The allegations made by the claimants were that the deceased was travelling in a three-wheeler No. USG 9797 owned by appellant No. 2 which was hit by a bus No. USG 7122 owned by appellant No. 1. On account of the aforesaid accident the deceased Lalmani Misra received serious injuries and remained hospitalised from 15th April, 1977 to 24th May, 1977 on which date he died in the Medical College Hospital at Jhansi. The claimants put up a claim to the extent of Rs. 6,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 55,000/- as loss of salary for the remaining period of his service and Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of pension for 14 years, the remaining period of his life after retirement. A claim of Rs. 20,000/- was also made by way of compensation for the loss of their livelihood etc.
3. The deceased was 49 years of age at the time of accident and was an employee of the Sales Tax Department earning Rs. 590/- per month as salary. He had 7 years more to go before his retirement. During this period of 7 years he would have received a sum of Rs. 55,000/- as salary. The longevity in the family being 70 years he was likely to live for another 14 years after retirement and during the said period he would have received Rs. 50,000/- by way of pension.
4. The facts disclosed on the record clearly establish a case of negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident and the Tribunal has given cogent reasons for its findings in this regard. We entirely agree with the same and hereby confirm the findings recorded by the Tribunal.
5. So far as the question of compensation is concerned we agree with the findings of the Tribunal. The fact that the deceased was Reader in the Sales Tax Office has been proved on record. The evidence shows that he was getting Rs. 590/- as salary. The Tribunal has rightly held that he must have been spending Rs. 100/- on his own self. Thus other members of the family must be receiving monetary benefit of Rs. 490/- per month. Thus the loss of salary for the remaining 7 years of his service would have yielded Rs. 41,160/-. On retirement also all Government servants are entitled to receive pension. Longevity in the family being rightly held as 70 years, he would have contributed approximately Rs. 33,600/- calculated at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month for the remaining 14 years of his post-retirement life. After taking into account the increments that the deceased may have earned during the last 7 years of his active-service and making allowance for the amounts spent by him on himself, the final figure arrived at by the Tribunal on this score, i.e., Rs. 31,600/- appears to be justified. No interference therein is called for.
6. Besides, the claimants are also justified in claiming Rs. 6,000/- as medical expenses that are likely to have been incurred in the treatment of the deceased. The claim of Rs. 20,000/- as loss of future prospects and loss of love and affection also appears to be reasonable. Thus, compensation of Rs. 98,760/- awarded by the Tribunal, therefore, appears to us to be just and proper.
7. Accordingly, we find no merits in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs.