JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.
1. This appeal arises out of a judgment and award dated 13.3.1981 passed by Mr. Anand Prasad Sinha, Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in M.J.C. (Motor Claim Case) No. 310 of 1980, whereby and whereunder the said learned court awarded a compensation to the extent of Rs. 30,000/- and directed that out of the aforementioned amount of compensation Rs. 25,000/- shall be payable by the insurance company and Rs. 5,000/- shall be payable by the owner of the truck. The owner of the truck has preferred this appeal, inter alia, on the ground that the learned Judicial Commissioner has wrongly directed him to pay the aforementioned amount of Rs. 5,000/- as the sum of Rs. 30,000/-comes within the limits of the statutory liability of the insurer. However, when the appeal was taken up, Mr. Kameshwar Prasad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, very fairly conceded that in view of the fact that the aforementioned sum of Rs. 5,000/- has already been deposited by the appellant to the respondent No. 1, he would not press this appeal.
2. In this case a cross-objection was filed by the claimant and Mr. S.N. Lai, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1, pressed the same.
3. The case of the applicant-respondent No. 1 was that her husband Hari Ram was a resident of Namkun. He was working in the High Tension Insulator Factory. At the time of his death he was aged about 35 years. He was getting a salary of Rs. 392.50 including basic salary of Rs. 270/-, a sum of Rs. 100/- as overtime and bonus at the rate of Rs. 22.50.
4. The further case of the respondent No. 1 was that apart from the aforementioned earnings the deceased also used to do part-time tailoring job and had been earning about Rs. 300/- per month.
5. On 15.5.1980 when the accident took place, the deceased had gone to Kanta-toli Chowk on a cycle and while he was returning back, near Kanta-toli Chowk a truck bearing registration No. BHN 6864, which was allegedly being driven rashly and negligently, dashed against Hari Ram who was on his cycle killing him at the spot.
6. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition before the Tribunal below claiming a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of compensation for death of her husband in the said road accident.
7. In support of the said claim the applicant-respondent No. 1 examined herself as AW 1. She stated about the income of her husband. The factum of the accident was proved by Madho Ram, AW 2, who was an eye-witness to the occurrence. He had a shop near about the place of the occurrence. He categorically stated that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently.
8. The learned Tribunal below has come to the conclusion that the said truck belonging to the appellant was being driven rashly and negligently. The learned Tribunal below, however, without assigning any reason whatsoever came to the conclusion that an award for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- will meet the ends of justice.
9. Mr. S.N. Lai, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has placed strong reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Jyotsna Dey v. State of Assam 1987 ACJ 172 (SC).
10. In that decision the Supreme Court held that in India normal span of life of a person should be expected to be 70 years and upon a modest estimate it could have been held in the facts and circumstances of that case that the deceased would have contributed a sum of Rs. 250/- per month for his family.
11. In the aforementioned case the Supreme Court held that a sum of Rs. 60,000/- would be a fair amount of compensation. The learned counsel further relied upon a decision in Kewala Devi v. Bihar State Rajya Trans. Corporation 1988 ACJ 1049 (Patna), wherein a sum of Rs. 85,000/- was awarded.
12. According to the learned counsel even assuming that the deceased was in a position to spend a sum of Rs. 250/- per month in that event also according to the aforementioned decision a sum of Rs. 75,000/- ought to have been paid by way of compensation,
13. Mr. M.Y. Eqbal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer, however, submitted that in a case of this nature the compensation should be awarded on multiplier system, i.e., by multiplying the annual income by 15 or 16. The learned counsel in this connection has placed strong reliance upon Bihar State Road Transport Corporation v. Chandreshwar Mishra 1983 ACJ 631 (Patna), Om Prakash Dalmia v. Bina Saha 1984 ACJ 224 (Patna) and Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. v. Northern India Transporters’ Insurance Co. Ltd. 1971 ACJ 206 (SC).
14. In the matter of determination of compensation, in my opinion, there cannot be any hard and fast rule. The amount of compensation to be awarded in the estimate of the court must be reasonable one. While awarding the compensation to a widow having a number of dependants, one must not forget that a monetary compensation is never a real substitute for the calamity that had befallen the family.
15. In the instant case, as noticed hereinbefore, the basic salary of the deceased was Rs. 270/- per month and he was also entitled to bonus at the rate of Rs. 22.50. It is, therefore, clear that he had been earning about a sum of Rs. 300/- per month, even if his earning some overtime as also the amount which he had allegedly been earning by doing his job of tailoring on part-time basis are not taken into consideration.
16. In that view of the matter, even on a modest estimate he would have been in a position to make contribution of Rs. 175/-p.m. towards his family.
17. True it is that in some cases for computing the amount of compensation the annual income has been multiplied by 15 or 16 by taking recourse to the multiplier system. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case I am of the view that better course would be to follow the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Jyotsna Dey v. State of Assam 1987 ACJ 172 (SC).
18. Further, it may be pointed out that while determining the compensation a Tribunal must take into consideration not only the expectancy of life but also his future prospects, chances of promotion and other relevant factors.
19. In my opinion the Tribunal while awarding compensation should also take into consideration the monetary inflation and the reduced buying power of the citizens in the present-day context.
20. Thus, considering all aspects of the matter I am of the view that an award for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by way of compensation shall meet the ends of justice.
21. As a sum of Rs. 5,000/- has already been deposited to the respondent No. 1 by the owner of the truck, the rest of the amount of Rs. 45,000/- is payable by the insurance company. The insurance company has already deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in this court.
22. In this view of the matter the insurance company is hereby directed to pay a further sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the respondent No. 1 within two months from today failing which the aforementioned sum shall cany further interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.
23. In the result the cross-objection is allowed to the aforementioned extent and the appeal is dismissed as not pressed. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case there will be no order as to costs.