JUDGMENT : Venkataraman, J.—Their Lordships reversed the decision of the Claims Tribunal on the point of negligence and held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the drivers of both the offending vehicles. The judgment then proceeds: 2. On the question of the amount of compensation, the material facts are these. Doraiswami a was a retired Military Pensioner drawing a pension of Rs. 15/- per month. He was then employed as a Rakshak in the Integral Coach Factory on a salary of Rs. 119-90. The date of birth of Doraiswami, according to the records of the Integral Coach Factory, (P.W. 4) was 10.9.1912. The collision was on 5.6.1965. Thus, he had completed 52 years of age. Tribunal proceeded on the footing as though there was no evidence up to what age Doraiswami was likely to have been retained in the service in the Integral Coach Factory and that he would have been retained in service up to his 60th year. Out of the total emolument of Rs. 134-90. He would have required about Rs. 60/- per month for his own maintenance and a sum of Rs. 75/- was available for the benefit of his estate. On that basis, the estate lost Rs. 900/- per annum. For the seven years, up to the age of 60, the loss would work out to Rs. 6,300/-. There was no material to show what he would have earned after his 60th year. The pension of Rs. 15/- per month would not be sufficient for his maintenance. The sum of Rs. 6,300/- was reduced to Rs. 5,000/- on account of the fact that the compensation was being paid in a lump sum. There was a possibility of his dying prematurely owing to unforeseen circumstances. 3. We accept the above reasoning, except on one point, namely, that evidence of P.W. 4 shows that the age of retirement of Doraiswami as Rakshak in the Integral Coach Factory was 58. The Tribunal has overlooked that. On account of that we cannot proceed on the basis that his remuneration would be Rs. 134-90 after his 58th year. At the same time, it is reasonable to hold that he would have earned something in addition to his pension between the 58th year and 60th year. Taking all factors into consideration, we reduce the amount of Rs. 5,000/- to a sum of Rs. 4.500 -. 134-90 after his 58th year. At the same time, it is reasonable to hold that he would have earned something in addition to his pension between the 58th year and 60th year. Taking all factors into consideration, we reduce the amount of Rs. 5,000/- to a sum of Rs. 4.500 -. In addition we allow a sum of Rs. 200/- as costs. 4. We allow the appeal, awarding a compensation of Rs. 4,500/- and costs Rs. 200/- to the Appellants. Both the Respondents are liable to pay this amount, but in the first instance the insurance company (second Respondent) will have to pay the amount.