INDRAWATI v. SITAL GIR — 1973 DIGILAW 174 (DEL)

Prithvi Raj, J. ( 1 ) OM Prakash Aggarwal son of Lala Panna Lal, resident of Lachhmansar, Amritsar, aged about 42 years, on 30th May, 1962, while travelling in D. T. U. bus No. D. L. P 226 on route No. 3 met with an accident between 11. 45 A. M. and 12. 00 noon near Church Road Crossing Gopinath Bazar, Delhi Cantt. The injured was removed to the Safdarjang Hospital in a taxi by Mr. Satpal Kapur, A. W. 1 where on examination by the doctor he was declared dead. ( 2 ) THE appellants in F. A. O. 146 of 1966 viz. , Indra Vati, widow of Om Parkash, Mr. Ramesh Kumar Gupta, Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta, sons of Om Parkash, Mr. Surinder Kumar Aggarwal, Mr. Raman Kumar Gupta, minor sons of Om Parkash and Kumari Rama Kumari, minor daughter of Om Parkash through Mrs. Indra Vati, their mother and natural guardian (hereinafter to be called the petitioners ) all dependents and legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim against Sital Gir, driver of the bus, The Delhi Transport Undertaking and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi being the owners of the bus, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, claiming rupees two lacs as the amount of compensation stating that on the 30th May, 1962, the deceased boarded bus No. DLP- 226 plying on route No. 3 at Bus stop of Gopi Nath Bazar, Delhi Cantt. and on entering the vehicle the deceased found no place to sit on account of its being overcrowded. It is stated that he had to stand in the bus along with other passengers. After taking passengers at the said bus stop, the bus started and it had hardly travelled about a furlong or so, when it came across a round about on the road. Without properly slowing down the vehicle, it was averred, the driver turned it at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of the jerk caused by sudden and fast turning, the deceased Om Parkash was thrown out of the bus and hitting some cables of an electric pole he fell on the ground. The deceased received serious injuries and had multiple fractures of the skull which caused profused bleeding from the head. The deceased was immediately taken to the Safdarjang Hospital but he expired somewhere on the way to the Hospital. The deceased received serious injuries and had multiple fractures of the skull which caused profused bleeding from the head. The deceased was immediately taken to the Safdarjang Hospital but he expired somewhere on the way to the Hospital. The deceased was declared dead on examination by the doctor. The petitioners contend that the accident causing the death of the deceased was sheerly due to rash and negligent act of driving of the driver, respondent No. 1, in taking the turn at a very high speed without slowing down the vehicle. The income of the deceased was stated to be Rs. 15,000 per annum. The deceased was stated to be running business as owner of (1) Prince Electric works, Chowk Chintpurni Amritsar, (2) Gupta Electric Co. , Hall Bazar, Amritsar and (3) M/s Om Parkash Aggarwal and sons, Bazar Lachmansar, Amritsar. ( 3 ) THE respondents resisted the claim and by way of preliminary objection alleged that the vehicle in question was exempt from the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act and as such the application was not maintainable. ( 4 ) THE allegation that respondent No. 1 turned the bus on the round about at a very high speed and in a negligent and rash manner was denied. It was also denied that as a result of the jerk caused by the sudden turn; the deceased was thrown out of the bus. It was averred that respondent No. 1 was driving the bus at its correct side and at its normal speed. The deceased was alleged to be standing on the foot board of the bus holding some article with one hand and leaning major part of his body outside the bus presumably with the intention to alight at the next bus stop. The bus which was coming on Church Road crossing, it was averred, was taking a turn when the body of the deceased which was leaning outside the bus struck against a way side electric pole as a result of which he fell down and received some injuries. In the circumstances, it was alleged that it was due to the contributory negligence of the deceased that he was involved in the accident for which the driver, respondent No. 1, could not be held responsible. It was alleged that the case on investigation by the police was declared an accidental one. In the circumstances, it was alleged that it was due to the contributory negligence of the deceased that he was involved in the accident for which the driver, respondent No. 1, could not be held responsible. It was alleged that the case on investigation by the police was declared an accidental one. Other averments of the petitioners regarding the income, age and health of the deceased were traversed and the petitioner were put to proof thereof. ( 5 ) THE Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Delhi on the pleadings of the parties tried the petition on the following issues : (1) Whether the application is not maintainable on the ground taken in para 1 of the written statement of the respondents. (2) Whether the accident resulting into death of Om Parkash Aggarwal deceased was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. (3) Whether the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence. (4) Whether the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased. (5) To what amount, if any, as compensation are the petitioners entitled. (6) Relief. ( 6 ) ISSUE No. 1 was not pressed and was decided against the respondents. Issue No. 2 was found in favour of the petitioners and it was held that the accident resulting into the death of Om Parkash was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver. Issue No. 3 was also found in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. As regards issue No. 4 it was found that Mrs. Indra Vati was the widow of the deceased and petitioners 2 to 6 his children. The issue was accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners. On issue No. 5 after discussing the evidence on record it was held that the net loss to the family would come to Rs. 2000. 00 per annum. The age of the deceased was fixed at 42 years. The income of the deceased was accordingly capitalised for a period of 13 years which amounted to Rs. 26,000. 00. A sum of Rs. 1000. 00 was deducted towards the acceleration of succession in respect of the house owned by the deceased at Amritsar. A further reduction of 10 per cent was made on account of the amount being paid in lump sum to the petitioners. In this way the net amount payable to the petitioners was calculated at Rs. 22,500. 00. 1000. 00 was deducted towards the acceleration of succession in respect of the house owned by the deceased at Amritsar. A further reduction of 10 per cent was made on account of the amount being paid in lump sum to the petitioners. In this way the net amount payable to the petitioners was calculated at Rs. 22,500. 00. Accordingly an award for Rs. 22,500. 00 was made in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents with costs. ( 7 ) FEELING aggrieved the petitioners filed F. A. O. 146-D of 1966 on the ground that the amount awarded was inadequate; that the deductions made by the Tribunal were not warranted by law and the petitioners consequently seek enhancement in the amount awarded to the extent of the amount claimed by them in the original claim petition. ( 8 ) THE respondents also felt aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal in holding "the accident resulting into the death ofOm Parkash was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent driver" and have assailed the said finding in F. A. O. 171-D of 1964 besides challenging the quantum of the award. The respondents aver that the injuries suffered by the deceased especially the head injuries support their version that major portion of the body of the deceased was outside the bus and his head struck against the electric pole; that there was no reliable evidence at all to support the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was holding the iron bar inside the bus and that he fell out because of the driver taking a sharp turn at a fast speed; that the evidence established a case of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased even if it be held that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver. The respondents further challenge the award on the ground that the same was excessive and unsustainable. It is under these circumstances that the two appeals have come for hearing in this Court. Since common question of law and fact is involved in these appeals, it would be appropriate to dispose them of by a single judgment. The respondents further challenge the award on the ground that the same was excessive and unsustainable. It is under these circumstances that the two appeals have come for hearing in this Court. Since common question of law and fact is involved in these appeals, it would be appropriate to dispose them of by a single judgment. ( 9 ) THE first question to be decided in these appeals is as to whether the accident occurred as a result of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased or whether it occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that the deceased in his own interest did not take reasonable care of himself while travelling in the bus and thus contributed by his want of care to his own injury as his body was outside the bus as a result whereof at the point where the bus took the turn, the body of the deceased struck against the way-side electric pole and was thrown out. To substantiate this contention reliance was placed upon the statement of Surinder Kumar, A. W. 2, in cross-examination who deposed that two other persons were standing on the left side of the deceased. It was accordingly contended that if the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver the first casualty would have been the two persons who were standing on the left side of the deceased as obviously they would have been thrown out from the bus by the jerk occasioned in the turning of the bus in case the bus was being driven at a very high speed. Besides, it was contened that this witness had negatived the contention that the vehicle was being driven at a high speed. ( 11 ) A duty, it was urged, was cast on the deceased to use ordinary care and skill to avoid foreseen danger but the deceased did not take due care to save himself from the inherent danger to which he exposed himself by standing on the foot board whereby his body was outside the bus. In the circumstances, it was urged that even reasonable care which the deceased owed to himself was not taken by the deceased as a result whereof the accident took place. In the circumstances, it was urged that even reasonable care which the deceased owed to himself was not taken by the deceased as a result whereof the accident took place. ( 12 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the respondents fails to take note of the deposition of A. W. 2 to the effect that the driver of the vehicle took the turn by plying the vehicle at the same speed at which the vehicle was being plied on the road. Besides he had stated that the deceased when he boarded the bus, was not standing on the footboard but was inside the bus and was not carrying any article in his hands. According to the said witness the electric pole was at a distance of 2 or 2 feet from the mettled portion of. the road. ( 13 ) OM Parkash A. W. 4 stated that he boarded the bus first and thereafter two or three other persons boarded it. The deceased boarded the bus thereafter and after having boarded the bus, the deceased was standing just nearby the side of that witness. The driver, he alleged, did not lessen the speed at the time of taking the turn and that the accident was caused as a result of the sharp turn at a high speed. He stated that on the noise being raised by the passengers, the bus was stopped after it had gone 15 yards from the place of accident. In cross-examination he deposed that the deceased was holding the rods and that he was standing in the bus at a distance of three feet from the door of the bus. He stated that before falling out of the bus the deceased struck against another passenger who was standing on the foot board. He also confirmed that the deceased was not carrying any article in his hand. ( 14 ) THE version of the petitioners finds support from the statement of A. W. 7 Sergeant Francis who was travelling in the bus in question on the day of accident and had occupied the righthand seat near the door. He stated that the deceased got into the bus and was standing inside the bus holding the bar. ( 14 ) THE version of the petitioners finds support from the statement of A. W. 7 Sergeant Francis who was travelling in the bus in question on the day of accident and had occupied the righthand seat near the door. He stated that the deceased got into the bus and was standing inside the bus holding the bar. The bus was totally packed and started at full swing, i. e. , 35/40 miles per hour According to the witness, near the Church Road, there was a small traffic island and the bus took such a sharp turn atthe same speed that it twisted towards left and right. The deceased flew outside and hit a pole and fell down. The bus, he stated, stopped at a distance of 40 yards. In cross-examination he stated that the deceased was holding both the bars in the bus. He had no packet or bag with him and was at a distance of 6 inches from the door of the bus. The electric pole according to the witness was at a distance of 2 yards from the road and was on kacha patri. He categorically stated that the deceased struck the pole after he fell out of the bus. He denied a suggestion that the deceased was on the foot board and struck against the pole when the bus took the turn. He is a disinterested witness and was not known or related to the deceased. There is no reason as to why his statement be not relied upon. ( 15 ) THE respondents produced Faqir Chand R. W. 3 who stated that he was travelling in the bus and was sitting on a seat towards the window near the door of the bus. According to him, the deceased was standing on the footboard and was carrying some articles in his hand. At the time when the bus took the turn the deceased after striking the electric pole fell down on the ground. Mool Chand R. W. 5 who was working as a tailor in Delhi Cloth Mills and was travelling in the bus on the day of occurrence stated that from Gopi Nath Bazar, two or three passengers boarded the bus. Two of them were on the second step while the third was on the first step. Mool Chand R. W. 5 who was working as a tailor in Delhi Cloth Mills and was travelling in the bus on the day of occurrence stated that from Gopi Nath Bazar, two or three passengers boarded the bus. Two of them were on the second step while the third was on the first step. According to him when the bus reached near the round about the driver slowed down the speed. The third person who was on the step of the footboard of the bus, Faqir chand stated, was half inside and half outside the bus, struck against the electric pole when the bus was taking the turn on the round about. The electric pole was on the edge of the road. In cross- examination he stated that the bus took the turn at the same speed on which the bus was going. The bus was stopped at a distance of 20 feet from the turning. ( 16 ) BANWARI Lal conductor of the bus, R. W. 4, stated that there was no passenger on the footboard and he gave the bell for the bus to start when all the passengers got inside. He stated that the bus was going at a fast speed-but he could not give the speed in miles when the accident took place. It may be stated here that after this witness had left the court-room he was alleged to have accepted some money from the petitioners and the said fact was brought to the notice of the court in writing. ( 17 ) EVEN if the evidence of the conductor of the bus be discarded on the ground that he was motivated to make a favourable statement in support of the contention of the petitioners for pecuniary interest there is credible testimony of A. W. 7, Sergeant Francis. He being a disinterested witness and a Government employee could not be said to have favoured the petitioners. Even the respondents did not attribute any such partiality to him. According to this witness the deceased when he boarded the bus was standing inside the bus holding a bar. The bus according to him was going at a speed of 35 or 40 miles per hour and at the church road it took such a sharp turn at the same speed that the bus twisted to its left and right. According to this witness the deceased when he boarded the bus was standing inside the bus holding a bar. The bus according to him was going at a speed of 35 or 40 miles per hour and at the church road it took such a sharp turn at the same speed that the bus twisted to its left and right. The deceased, according to the witness, flew outside and hit an electric pole, and fell down. No conceivable reason was advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents as to why reliance should not be placed on the testimony of this witness. Besides, Surinder Kumar, A. W. 2 had also deposed that the deceased when he boarded the bus was not standing on the foot board. According to Om Parkash, A. W. 4 the deceased was standing in the bus just near him and that he (the witness) was inside the bus three feet away from the door thereof. The version of A. W. 7 finds support from the version of A. Ws. 2 and 4. ( 18 ) THE testimony of R. Ws. 3 and 5 cannot be relied upon. R. W. 3 in his cross- examination had admitted that when the bus took the turn, the deceased rolled out of the bus and struck against the electric pole. According to R. W. 5 the deceased who was on the first step of the bus was half inside and half outside the bus, struck against the electric pole, when the bus was taking the turn on the round about and that the electric pole was on the edge of the road. He stated that he saw the deceased falling and that the deceased fell near the pole. On this assertion Faqir Chand and Mool Chand, R. Ws. 3 and 5 are contradicting each other. ( 19 ) FROM the petitioners evidence it is proved that the deceased was inside the bus, and fell out because the driver took a sharp turn on the round about at a fast speed. In this view of the matter the finding of the Tribunal that the accident resulting in the death of Om Parkash was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus has to be confirmed. In this view of the matter the finding of the Tribunal that the accident resulting in the death of Om Parkash was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus has to be confirmed. ( 20 ) THIS brings me to the question as to whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper and reasonable. It is well-settled that there cannot be any quantitative scale of computing compensation for damages resulting from death. The courts are to exercise their discretion in arriving at a reasonable and fair figure keeping in view the circumstances of each particular case. In such cases the fundamental basis of the claim is always the pecuniary loss suffered by the claimants. It is also true that no certain or precise standards of computation of compensation can be resorted to and the Courts have in the main to determine the extent of financial loss caused to the dependants of the deceased, which must necessarily be an estimate. In Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R. M. K. Veluswami,1 it was observed that in calculating thepecuniary loss to the dependants many imponderables enter into the calculation. That being the position in law, the court in each case has to apply its mind to arrive at a reasonable and fair figure of compensation. ( 21 ) THE evidence on the record of the income of the deceased was sought to be shown through Dharambir, A. W. 5, Balraj Khullar, A. W. 6, Tilak Raj Gupta, A. W. 8 and Romesh Kumar A. W. 9. , who is the son of the deceased. A. W. 5 who had business dealings with the deceased stated that the deceased was doing good business. However, he could not say what profits the deceased used to earn from his business. Statement of A. W. 6 was on the same lines. A. W. 8 deposed that the deceased worked under two names, viz. Prince Electric Works and Gupta Electric Company. He deposed that the deceased was a good businessman. He worked with the deceased since 1951. He further deposed that the status of the business carried on by the deceased was Hindu Undivided Family business and that the same was assessed by the Income-tax Department as Hindu Undivided Family concern. Prince Electric Works and Gupta Electric Company. He deposed that the deceased was a good businessman. He worked with the deceased since 1951. He further deposed that the status of the business carried on by the deceased was Hindu Undivided Family business and that the same was assessed by the Income-tax Department as Hindu Undivided Family concern. Prince Electric Works and Gupta Electric Company, he stated, were still continuing and the sons of the deceased were carrying on that business. The deceased, the witness stated, used to spend Rs. 400. 00 on his family per month besides rupees 4 to 5 per day on entertaining the customers. ( 22 ) ROMESH Kumar aged 23 years, A. W. 9, the son of the deceased proved Exhibits A. W. 1 and A. W. 2, copies of the assessment orders and stated that the incomes for the year 1961-62 onwards had not been assessed. He stated that his father used to look after and provide for the entire family and at the time of the death of his father he and his brothers Vijay Kumar and Vimal Kumar had to discontinue their studies. In cross examination he admitted that both the concerns, viz. , Prince Electric Works and Gupta Electric Company were joint family concerns. ( 23 ) THE evidence of A. Ws. 5 and 6 is of no help. The said witnesses do not provide any data regarding the income of the deceased. One thing which emerges prominently from the statements of A. Ws. 8 and 9 is that the concerns which the deceased was managing were the concerns of Hindu Undivided Family. This also is borne out from the assessment orders, Exhibits A/1 and A/2. The concerns being joint Hindu Family businesses, there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the Tribunal was wrong in taking the entire income of the said concerns as the income of the deceased. ( 24 ) THE question, therefore, would be what was the income of the family concerns and what share the deceased had in the said income. ( 25 ) FOR assessment order Exhibit A/2, the net income of the Hindu Undivided Family for the year 1960-61 was assessed at Rs. 10,137. 00 while per Exhibit A/i the income for the assessment year 1961-62 was assessed at Rs. 5299. 00. The Tribunal took the latter income, ie. ( 25 ) FOR assessment order Exhibit A/2, the net income of the Hindu Undivided Family for the year 1960-61 was assessed at Rs. 10,137. 00 while per Exhibit A/i the income for the assessment year 1961-62 was assessed at Rs. 5299. 00. The Tribunal took the latter income, ie. , Rs. 5299. 00 as the basis for computing the loss. It is a matter of common knowledge that there is always a rise and fall in the income from the business. The Tribunal, therefore, in my opinion, was in error in taking the income at Rs. 5,299. 00 as the basis for the computation of the loss suffered. In taking the income as revealed in assessment order, Exhibit A/1, the Tribunal took for granted as if the income in the following years was to remain stationary. In my opinion the fair method of assessing the income would be to add the income for the two years from the family concerns and take the mean of the two incomes as the basis for calculating the income. If this be done, the income of the Hindu Undivided Family concerns would work out at Rs. 7,718. 00 ( 26 ) IT is in the evidence of A. W. 8 and A. W. 9 that the business in the name of Gupta Electric Company was started immediately before the death of the deceased. There is no rebuttal to this assertion. The assessment orders, Exhibits A/1 and A/2 obviously do not include the income which would accrue to the family from Gupta Electric Company. The income which was likely to accrue from the Gupta Electric Company has also to be taken into consideration while making an estimate of the income of the deceased. ( 27 ) THE point to be determined would be as to what income could be earned by the Hindu Undivided Family from this new venture, viz. , Gupta Electric Company. It is in evidence that the deceased single handedly had been managing the two concerns, i. e. , Prince Electric Works and Om Parkash Aggarwal and Sons doing the business of manufacture of buckets and trunks. The business was not confined to the city of Amritsar. Goods were being supplied outside as well. , Gupta Electric Company. It is in evidence that the deceased single handedly had been managing the two concerns, i. e. , Prince Electric Works and Om Parkash Aggarwal and Sons doing the business of manufacture of buckets and trunks. The business was not confined to the city of Amritsar. Goods were being supplied outside as well. A. W. 6 resident of Romesh Nagar, Delhi, had been getting goods from Hindu Undivided Family concerns for sale at Delhi on which he was given 12% commission. A. W. 9, Romesh Kumar son of the deceased was examined on 31st August, 1964, and he gave his age as 23 years. Accident occurred on 30th May, 1962. Romesh Kumar at the time of accident was nearly 21 years of age and was a B. Sc. student. Vijay Kumar the other son of the deceased was studying in F. A. at the time of the accident while in the meantime the third son of the deceased had also passed the Higher Secondary Examination, as is evident from the statement of Romesh Kumar; A. W. 9. The sons of the deceased were coming of age. The probability of the sons joining the family business could not be ruled out. With the sons joining the business, there was likelihood of the business of the Gupta Electric Co. , being run on successful lines yielding profits and thus augmenting the family income. What profits were earned from the business of Gupta Electric Co. had not been proved though an effort was made by the petitioners to prove on record the balance sheet prepared from the account books which were rightly not allowed to be placed on record by the Tribunal as no reliance was placed on them and neither the copies were produced. Besides the documents were not produced earlier. However, it is well settled that while determining the income of the deceased, the court has to arrive at a figure which mustnecessarily be an estimate and conjecture to some extent is inevitable in arriving at the estimate as many imponderables enter into the calculation. ( 28 ) IN assessment order, Exhibit A/2, for the year 1960-61 income from the sale to electrical goods of Prince Electric Works was accepted at Rs. 7011. 00. ( 28 ) IN assessment order, Exhibit A/2, for the year 1960-61 income from the sale to electrical goods of Prince Electric Works was accepted at Rs. 7011. 00. For the year 1961-62 vide assessment order, Exhibit A/1, the income of Hindu Undivided Family business both from the sale of buckets and trunks as also from the sale of electrical goods was accepted at Rs. 5219. 00. Half the figure of this amount can be safely taken as the income from the sale of electrical goods which would be Rs. 2609. 00. Thus the income from the sale of electrical goods for the two assessment years, 1960-61 and 1961-62, in respect of Prince Electric Works would come to Rs. 9620. 00. The average for one year would be Rs. 4810. 00. I have already noted above that there was the possibility of the sons of the deceased joining business. It would not be arbitrary to visualise that had the sons joined the family business it would certainly have given a push to the business and the sales resulting in good profits. There can be no denying the fact that the business of Gupta Electric Co. , was a new business but keeping in view the income accruing from Prince Electric Works, it can be assumed that the income likely to accrue from the business of Gupta Electric Co. would be in the range of the income derived from Prince Electric Works which on the average had been taken at Rs. 4810. 00. In this view of the matter I am of the opinion that Gupta Electric Co. was likely to yield an income of Rs. 4810. 00 to the Hindu Undivided Family business. ( 29 ) IN an earlier part of the judgment I have taken Rs. 7718. 00to be the income of the Hindu Undivided Family from the business of Prince Electric Works and from the sale of buckets and trunks. Adding the sum of Rs. 4810. 00 likely to accrue as income from Gupta Electric Co. to this figure of Rs. 7718. 00, the total income likely to accrue to the Hindu Undivided Family would be Rs. 12,528. 00. ( 30 ) THE next question to be decided is as to what was the financial loss suffered by the petitioners consequent to the death of the deceased. to this figure of Rs. 7718. 00, the total income likely to accrue to the Hindu Undivided Family would be Rs. 12,528. 00. ( 30 ) THE next question to be decided is as to what was the financial loss suffered by the petitioners consequent to the death of the deceased. The deceased was a member of the Hindu Undivided Family consisting of the deceased, and his four sons. If partition had taken place in the life time of the deceased, his share would have been l/6th in the family income, widow of the deceased being entitled to receive a share equal to that of a son. The share of the deceased in the income of Hindu Undivided Family would have been l/6th of Rs. 12528. 00 being the estimated income of the Hindu Undivided Family. The deceased share in the family income on division would be Rs. 2088. 00. ( 31 ) ACCORDING to A. W. 9, the son of the deceased, the family used to spend Rs. 200. 00 on food per month. Thus the deceased s share in the food expenses would be taken as Rs. 30. 00 per month. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the class of society, viz. , shopkeepers, to which the deceased belonged, the bread winner of the family spends very little on himself trying to save every penny for the benefit of the descendants. Accordingly a sum of Rs. 45. 00 per month may be taken to have been spent by the deceased on his clothing and other expenses. Thus the estimated personal expenses of the deceased were not more than Rs. 75. 00 per month or Rs 900. 00 per annum. Deducting this amount from the sum of Rs. 2088. 00 being the share of the deceased in the Hindu Undivided Family business, the net loss suffered by the petitioners was Rs. 1188. 00 or Rs. 1200. 00 in round figure. Had the deceased not died in the accident he would have plougned this amount annually into the family income and together with his sons augmented the family wealth. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that on the evidence of A. W. 9, the deceased used to spend Rs. 200. 00 per month on his clothing. Had the deceased not died in the accident he would have plougned this amount annually into the family income and together with his sons augmented the family wealth. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that on the evidence of A. W. 9, the deceased used to spend Rs. 200. 00 per month on his clothing. If that be so, the deceased was not able to contribute anything to the family earning and that nothing should be awarded as compensation to the petitioners. The statement of A. W. 9 that the deceased was spending Rs. 200. 00 on his clothing appears to have been made by his son in a spirit of bravado to show the family status and the comfort in which the family was living. Keeping in view the status of the family and the income that it earned, much reliance cannot be placed on the statement of A. W. 9 that the deceased used to spend Rs. 200. 00 per month on his clothing. ( 32 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners brought to my notice some of the cases in which higher amounts were awarded as compensation. The said cases need not be noted as the deceased in those cases were not members of the Hindu Undivided Family business. Besides, the determination of compensation turns upon the facts of each case. ( 33 ) THE next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the deceased was the sole person managing and directing the business of the family. The sons of the deceased being students, whatever was earned by the Hindu Undivided Family business was the result of the efforts of the deceased. Consequently on his death it was vehemently urged, the income suddenly dwindled thus causing a great loss to the family business and that loss, it was contended, should be taken as the measure of loss suffered by the family. Besides, it was submitted that the sons had to discontinue their studies, there by their future was jeopardised. The distruption of the studies of sons goes the argument, should also be taken into consideration in awarding compensation. ( 34 ) THERE is no force in these contentions. The family business was going on even after the death of the deceased. Besides, it was submitted that the sons had to discontinue their studies, there by their future was jeopardised. The distruption of the studies of sons goes the argument, should also be taken into consideration in awarding compensation. ( 34 ) THERE is no force in these contentions. The family business was going on even after the death of the deceased. A. W. 9, Ramesh Kumar, the son of the deceased stated that there was a lot of deterioration in their family business after the death of the deceased but no material was brought on the record to substantiate the said allegation. The petitioners failed to show if there was any loss in the family business after the death of the deceased. Compensation is not to be awarded as a solatium but on the basis of the actual loss suffered by the family which in the instant case was the sum of Rs. 1200. 00 which amount the deceased was pooling in the family resources. ( 35 ) THE evidence on the record does not reveal that the sons had a brilliant academic record and that their future chances were eclipsed by the death of their father. On his own admission, A. W. 9 Ramesh Kumar had passed F. Sc. in the third division, Vijay Kumar the other son passed matric in third division. Ramesh Kumar was not sure whether his other brother Raman Kumar passed the Higher Secondary in first Division or not. The sons were average students and there was hardly any bright prospect for them in the field of studies. No special compensation is awardable for disruption of studies; more so when the sons were already getting their share of income from the Hindu Undivided family concerns. ( 36 ) THE next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that compensation should have been awarded for 25 years as the average span of life in the modern age has increased. It was contended that the deceased was 42 years of age at the time of his death and was enjoying good health. He was accordingly expected to live for another 25 years. ( 37 ) THERE is no rebuttal to the fact that at the time of death the deceased was of 42 years and, therefore, the age of the deceased at the time of accident has to be taken as 42 years. He was accordingly expected to live for another 25 years. ( 37 ) THERE is no rebuttal to the fact that at the time of death the deceased was of 42 years and, therefore, the age of the deceased at the time of accident has to be taken as 42 years. Except for the bare statement of A. W. 9 that the deceased was enjoying good health, there is no other material on the record to show that the members of the family are long lived. In the circumstances it is not possible to sustain the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that for the purposes of assessing the loss suffered by the petitioners, the income of the deceased should be computed for a period of 25 years. The Tribunal capitalised the income of the deceased for a period of 13 years which, in my opinion, was on the lower side. The average age of a male in the quinquennium (1965-70) was about 60 years as per statistics collected by the Government. While in the next quinquennium it was expected to increase to 63 years. The accident occurred on the 30th May, 1962. On the basis of the average life span of a male as revealed in the statistics collected by the Government, I am of the opinion that the deceased who was enjoying good health, which assertion had not been traversed, would have lived upto the age of 58 years. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to compensation on the basis of his contribution to the income of the family for 16 years. In this view of the matter, if the income of the deceased were to be capitalised for a period of 16 years, the net amount would come to Rs. 19,200. 00. Since the amount is being paid in lump sum, the said amount has to be reduced by 3 per cent and it would come to Rs. 18,624. 00. ( 38 ) IN view of my discussion on the various points noted above the appeal of the petitioners, F. A. O. No. 146-D of 1966 fails and is hereby dismissed while the appeal of the respondents, F. A. O. 171-D of 1966, is accepted and the amount of Rs. 22,500. 00 awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the petitioners is reduced to Rs. 18,624. 00. 22,500. 00 awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the petitioners is reduced to Rs. 18,624. 00. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.