Jagjit Singh, J. ( 1 ) ON May 4, 1957, Shri J. M. Tandon, Subordinate Judge, First Class, Delhi, passed a decree for Rs. 15,000. 00 with proportionate costs in favour of Tika Ram and his wife, Mrs. Vidya Vati. Kartar Singh, Prem Singh and the Premier Life and General Insurance Company Limited, New Delhi, against whom the decree was passed, filed this regular first appeal. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are not disputed. On June 8, 1953, Parkash and his brother Manohar Lal were going to Badarpur Railway Station from a school for blind persons, situated at Lal Kuan. Manohar Lal being blind, he was being led by his elder brother Parkash. When they were near Prahladpur, between Faridabad and Lal Kuan, truck No. DLH-6838, belonging to Kartar Singh and Prem Singh, came from the back side and knocked down Parkash The truck was being driven by Prem Singh. After the accident, Parkash was removed. in the same truck to Safdarjang Hospital, where on the same day he succumbed to his injuries. Under the Fatal Accidents Act. 1855 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and on the allegation that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently without any regard to the rules of the road, the parents, brothers and sisters of the deceased instituted a suit for recovering Rs. 40,000. 00, as damages, from the owners of the truck the driver and the Insurance Company with which that vehicle was insured. After holding that Tika Ram and Mrs. Vidya Vati had each suffered a loss to the extent of Rs. 7,500. 00 the Subordinate Judge, as stated above, passed a decree for Rs. 15,000. 00 only. ( 3 ) THE following issues were framed in the case: 1. Whether Sri Parkash deceased died as a result of injury received by him on account of the rash and negligent driving of truck No. DLH 6838 by defendant No. 2 as alleged in para. 2 of the plaint ? 2. Whether the accident had occurred as a result of contributory negligence of Sri Parkash deceased and Manobar Lal plaintiff No. 3 ? 3. Whether the plaintiffs have a locus standii to file the present suit ? 4. To what damages, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled ? 5. What is the liability of defendant No. 3 ? 6. Relief. 2. Whether the accident had occurred as a result of contributory negligence of Sri Parkash deceased and Manobar Lal plaintiff No. 3 ? 3. Whether the plaintiffs have a locus standii to file the present suit ? 4. To what damages, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled ? 5. What is the liability of defendant No. 3 ? 6. Relief. Issue No. I was decided in favour of the respodents. Regarding issue No. 3 it was held that only the parents had locus standii to claim damages as under the Act a suit can be for the benefit of the parents but not for the benefit of the brothers and sisters. Issue No. 2 was found against the appellants. On issue Nos. 4 and 5, findings were given that Tikka Ram and Mrs. Vidya Vati were each entitled to Rs. 7,500,- by way of damages and that the insurance Company was also liable. ( 4 ) MR. A. N. Monga, learned counsel for the appellants, did not dispute the findings on issues other than the issue relating to the quantum of damages. It was contended by him that the deceased being a student of Delhi Polytechnic and his parents being fairly well-to-do, there was no possibility of the parents deriving any pecuniary benefit from the deceased even if he had not died as a result of the accident. In any case, it was urged that the amount allowed was excessive. ( 5 ) WE are unable to agree with the contention of Mr. Monga that even if Parkash had not died as a result of the accident his father and mother could not possibly have derived any pecuniary benefit from him. The parents could have reasonably expected pecuniary benefit if the deceased. had not been killed. It has, therefore, to be seen whether the estimate of the loss of pecuniary benefit made by the learned Subordinate Judge is excessive. The parents could have reasonably expected pecuniary benefit if the deceased. had not been killed. It has, therefore, to be seen whether the estimate of the loss of pecuniary benefit made by the learned Subordinate Judge is excessive. ( 6 ) IN Gobald Motor Service Limited v. R. M. K. Veluswami1, it was observed by the Supreme Court that the actual extent of the pecuniary loss may depend upon data which cannot be ascertained accurately, but must necessarily be an estimate, or even partly a conjecture; ( 7 ) THE data available in this case and on the basis of which estimation of the pecuniary loss to the respondents can be made is as under : (a) Parkash was, at the time of accident, between 21 to 25 years of age. Girdhari Lal (Public Witness 10), an uncle of the deceased was 21. Manohar Lal (Public Witness 2), however, gave his own age as 17 years and stated that Parkash was about 8 or 9 years older to him ; (b) the deceased had already passed the Matriculation examination in second division and for a period of 1 years had been studying in Delhi polytechnic for an electrical engineering course, with the object of getting the A. M. I. E. degree; (c) after qualifying as electrical engineer, the deceased could have got a starting basic salary of about Rs. 275. 00 per month; (d) the deceased was in good health at the time of meeting with the accident; (e) Tika Ram, father of the deceased, was about fifty five years old when on April 24, 1956, he appeared as a witness in the case. According to him his wife, Mrs. Vidya Vati, was then about 40 years of age; and (f) Tika Ram is fairly well-to-do and had invested between forty to fifty thousand rupees in his shop. ( 8 ) THE deceased at the time of meeting with the fatal accident was in good health and had good prospects in life. There is no reason why he could not have an expectation of life up to fifty five years. In two or three years time, he would have qualified as an electrical engineer and normally should have started earning about Rs. 275. 00 per month or even more. Out of his income he could be expected to give to his parents, after meeting his expenses, about Rs. 50. In two or three years time, he would have qualified as an electrical engineer and normally should have started earning about Rs. 275. 00 per month or even more. Out of his income he could be expected to give to his parents, after meeting his expenses, about Rs. 50. 00 per month. Assuming that Tika Ram and Mrs. Vidya Vati continue to live for another seven or eight years, the period during which they would have derived pecuniary benefit would be about fifteen years. It, therefore, appears that a reasonable estimation of the pecuniary loss of the respondents would be at the rate of Rs. 50. 00 per month for a period of fifteen years and thus the amount of damages payable by the appellants can be fixed at Rs. 9,000. 00. To this amount, Tika Ram and Mrs. Vidya Vati would be entitled in equal shares. ( 9 ) IT was urged before us that the benefit of getting a lump-sum should also be taken into consideration as on a lump- sum amount interest at a good rate is available. In Union of India v. Viranwali1 a similar contention was raised and in that case it was observed by Hegde, C. J. that the benefit of getting a lump-sum payment was offset by the increase in prices and the progressive decrease in the value of the rupee. With respect, we are in agreement with that view. ( 10 ) CONSIDERING all the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that Rs 9,000. 00 is a reasonable estimation of the pecuniary loss to Tika Ram and Mrs. Vidya Vati respondents due to the death of their son, Parkash, caused by an accident as a result of rash and negligent driving of a track by Prem Singh appellant. ( 11 ) FOR the reasons given above, the appeal is accepted with proportionate costs to the extent that the amount of the decree is reduced from Rs. 15,000. 00 to Rs. 9,000. 00. In the result the suit of Tika Ram and Mrs. Vidya Vati plaintiffs is decreed for Rs. 9,000. 00 only with proportionate costs throughout, reduced by the costs of the defendants with respect to Rs. 6,000. 00, being the amount with respect to which they have succeeded in appeal. S. K. Kapur, J. I agree.