D. K. Mahajan,j. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award of compensation to the respondents for the death by accident of one Girdhari Singh, husband of respondent 1 and father of respondent 2 and 3. ( 2 ) THERE is no dispute that Girdhari Singh was killed by accident caused by scooter belonging to Joginder Nath and driven by Nirmal Singh and that the respondent are his dependents. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has assessed the compensation atrs. l3,500. 00. An appeal has been filed by the owner of the scooter as well as by the Premier Insurance Company Limited. So far as the Insurance Company is concerned, it is not entitled to appeal against the quantum of compensation and as a matter of fact. in view of the clear terms of section 96 (2), the present appeal is not at all competent by the Insurance Company on any ground on which the claim was contested before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. However, the appeal is competent on behalf of the owner of the vehicle. ( 3 ) THE first contention advanced on behalf of the owner is that evidence has been led on issue No. 1 countrary to its frame and, therefore, a new case that has not been pleaded has been made out. Issue No. 1 is in these terms :- "whether Joginder Nath drove the scooter negligently, and this resulted into an accident, which caused the death of Girdhari Singh ?" Evidence has been led to prove that it was Nirmal Singh and not the owner Joginder Nath, who was driving the scooter. It is, therefore, argued that the frame of the issue has caused injustice to the appellant. This contention has to be rejected because, in my opinion, no injustice has at all been caused to the appellant. In the application, it is clearly stated that the vehicle was owned by Joginder Nath and it was, at the time of the accident, driven by a driver. The name of the driver is not mentioned. In evidence, it was brought out that the vehicle was being driven by Nirmal Singh driver. No objection was taken to this on the ground that it is a fact outside the pleadings or the issues. The name of the driver is not mentioned. In evidence, it was brought out that the vehicle was being driven by Nirmal Singh driver. No objection was taken to this on the ground that it is a fact outside the pleadings or the issues. As a matter of fact, the parties very well understood their case and allowed evidence to be led to prove as to who was the person who was driving the vehicle. It is significant that no evidence has been led by the Insurance Company or the owner to the contrary. As no objection was taken to the evidence when 254 led, on this part of the case, it is now too late to permit it to be raised. I would accordingly reject the first contention. ( 4 ) THE second contention of the learned counsel is that the master is not liable for the vicarious liability of his servant unless it is proved that the servant was acting in the discharge of his duties. It is maintained that as a matter of fact, it is not even proved that Nirmal Singh was an employee of Joginder Nath. However, this contention is of no avail to the learned counsel for the appellant because it is admitted that the scooter did belong to Joginder Nath and it is proved on record that it was, at the relevant time, being driven by Nirmal Singh. In this situation, it has to be presumed that the scooter was being driven by Nirmal Singh for and on behalf of the owner. In this connection, reference may be made to Workers employed in Thambi Motor Service. Salem v. Management Thambi Motor Service, State v. Bhagwan Singh" and Dinbai R. Wadia and others v. Farukh Mobedjna. This presumption could have been rebutted by the owner of the vehicle; but the owner chose not to lead any evidence. Thus, the liability of the owner does arise in law for the accident caused by Nirmal Singh who was driving the owner s vehicle. Therefore, the second contention has no merit and is rejected. ( 5 ) THE last contention of the learned counsel is with regard to the quantum of the compensation awarded. Thus, the liability of the owner does arise in law for the accident caused by Nirmal Singh who was driving the owner s vehicle. Therefore, the second contention has no merit and is rejected. ( 5 ) THE last contention of the learned counsel is with regard to the quantum of the compensation awarded. The first argument advanced that the span of life which the deceased might have lived is fixed at 15 years without any evidence, or, in other words, the argument is that the age of the deceased, as stated by the son, was 45-50 years and it is contended that 50 years should have been taken to be the age and the remaining span of life should have been fixed at 12 years. I am, however, unable to agree with this contention because it was for the Tribunal to fix the age of the deceased. The Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at 45 years and on that basis, he fixed the span of life at 15 years. Moreover, the fixation of the span of life is, more or less, a rule of the thumb and a mere minor divergence to this side or that side is no ground for departing from the decision of the Tribunal in appeal. Therefore, no fault can be found with the decision of the Tribunal with regard to fixing the remaining span of life of the deceased at 15 years. ( 6 ) THE other argument advanced is that the deceased was subscribing to provident fund and, therefore, the amount of the provident fund should have been deducted from the amount of compensation fixed. This contention is supported by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Dr. Ram Saran and another v. Shrimati Shakuntala Rai, and the learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the correctness of his correctness of this proposition. The only question that remains to be settled is -what is the amount of provident fund which should be deducted. Counsel for the parties are agreed that a sum of Rs. 2. 000. 00 should be deducted on this score. ( 7 ) I accordingly allow this appeal-partially to this extent that a sum of Rs. 2. 000. 00 shall be deducted from the compensation fixed by the Tribunal. The result, therefore, is that the amount of compensation fixed at Rs. 13. 500. 2. 000. 00 should be deducted on this score. ( 7 ) I accordingly allow this appeal-partially to this extent that a sum of Rs. 2. 000. 00 shall be deducted from the compensation fixed by the Tribunal. The result, therefore, is that the amount of compensation fixed at Rs. 13. 500. 00 is reduced to Rs. 11,500 -. In other respects, the order of the Tribunal is confirmed. There will be no order as to costs in this Court.