S. N. Shankar. J. ( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of F. A. O. 142-D of 1967 and 173 of 1967 both arising out of the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated March 21, 1967. ( 2 ) ON September 6, 1967 at about 5. 40 A. M. Mohd. Idris son of Abdul Razaq while crossing Shyama Parshad Mukerjee Road in front of Fire Brigade Building met with an accident resulting in his death. The legal representatives of the deceased, namely, his mother, widow and two sons applied under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for the grant of Rs. 55,000. 00 on account of compensation to them as a result of the death of Mohd. Idris. Jaspal Singh, the driver of the scooter, Manohar Lal, owner of the scooter and Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. , the insurer of the scooter were impleaded as respondents. The claim was contested. On the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues : (1) Whether Shri Mohd, Idris met with an accident with scooter No. DLR- 4742 on 6. 9. 1965 as alleged ? (2) Whether the accident, if proved, was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 2 ? (3) Whether the petitioners are legal representatives of the deceased ? (4) To what amount, if any, are the petitioners entitled ? (5) Relief. The Tribunal found issues 1, 2 and 3 in favour of the petitioners but found that petitioners 3 and 4 were the major sons of the deseased and were earning members and, therefore, no entitled to compensation. Out of the total compensation amounting to Rs. 5,130. 00 assessed as payable to the legal representatives, a sum of Rs. 4130. 00 was awarded to the widow of the deceased, petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 1000. 00 to the mother of the deceased, petitioner No. 2. ( 3 ) JASPAL Singh, the scooter driver and the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. have filed F. A. O. 142-D of 1967 challenging the order of the Tribunal on issues 1 and 3 and all the four legal representatives of the deceased including two sons have filed F. A. O. 173 of 1967 challenging the quantum of compensation assessed under issue No. 4. ( 4 ) MANOHAR Lal, owner of the scooter, has not filed any appeal. ( 5 ) MR. ( 4 ) MANOHAR Lal, owner of the scooter, has not filed any appeal. ( 5 ) MR. S. C. Dhanda, appearing on behalf of the appellants in F A. O. 142 of 1967 has urged that the Tribunal was in error in holding that scooter No. DLR-4742 was involved in the accident. He contended in the alternative that assuming the accident was caused by the scooter, no negligence on the part of the driver Jaspal Singh was proved on the record. ( 6 ) PUBLIC witness 1 Karam Chaud is an eye witness to the accident. He stated that on September 6, 1965 at about 5. 30 A. M. or 5. 45 A. M. he saw a scooter going at a fast speed towards Novelty Cinema from Pilikothi side on the wrong side of the road and that a person was crossing the road in front of the Fire Brigade and he was knocked down by the scooter. The scooter stopped at a distance of 15-20 paces after the impact. To the same effect is the statement of Mohd. Umar Public witness 7 another eye witness of the accident. Public witness 4 Khalid Hamid arrived on the spot of accident a little later. He stated that when he reached there the scooter was facing towards railway station on the wrong side of the road and the person struck by it was lying on the road in an unconscious state. He took the deceased to the police hospital in this very scooter and from there to Irwin Hospital. Public witness 3 is Dr. Vishnu Kumar who conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased. His report is Exhibit Public witness 3/1. P. W. 6 Joginder Mani, S. 1 investigated the case. He has stated that he prepared the inquest report and sent the body for post mortum examination and also recorded the statements of the witnesses and prepared site plan Exhibit P. W. 6/1. He states that he arrested Jaspal Singh, scooter driver and also challenged him and that Jaspal Singh had already been convicted by the criminal court. He has stated that he prepared the inquest report and sent the body for post mortum examination and also recorded the statements of the witnesses and prepared site plan Exhibit P. W. 6/1. He states that he arrested Jaspal Singh, scooter driver and also challenged him and that Jaspal Singh had already been convicted by the criminal court. In rebuttal, the respondents produced no evidence except the statement of Jaspal Singh who stated that on September 6,1965 at about 5 A. M. he was coming from New Delhi railway station on his three wheeler scooter No. "4742" and was proceeding to Delhi main Railway Station without any passenger and while he was bean Novelty Cinema, one person signalled him to stop and there he stopped his scooter. According to him, he was told that a person was lying on the road and was asked to take him to the hospital. At first, he says he thought that it was risky but later on humanitarian grounds, he agreed to pick up the person and took him first to Civil Lines hospital and then to Irwin Hospital. After leaving the person in the Hospital he stated that he left the place. He denied that he knocked down the deceased or was involved in the accident. He further stated that he was arrested on the fourth day after the accident. He admitted that he had already been convicted by the criminal court but that he wanted to file appeal from this order but had not obtained a certified copy. This statement was recorded by the Tribunal on March 7, 1967. In cross-examination he admitted that he was convicted by the criminal court on October 31, 1966 and that till the date of his statement he had not applied for a certified copy. He further stated in cross-examination that he was going to Delhi main station for getting the passengers and that the first train reaches Delhi Main Railway Station at 5 A. M. and the other trains also come there after some time. He admitted that he was coming from New Delhi Railway Station which he left at 4. He further stated in cross-examination that he was going to Delhi main station for getting the passengers and that the first train reaches Delhi Main Railway Station at 5 A. M. and the other trains also come there after some time. He admitted that he was coming from New Delhi Railway Station which he left at 4. 45 A. M. ( 7 ) THE Tribunal, to arrive at the finding that the deceased met with the accident with the scooter driven by Jaspal Singh and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on his part, relied mainly on the evidence of eye witnesses Public witness 1, and Public witness 7. After a careful consideration of the evidence. I see no reason to differ from this conclusion of the Tribunal. There is nothing in the cross-examination of these witnesses to show that they had not seen the accident or that they had any other motive in implicating Jaspal Singh. ( 8 ) MR. Dhanda urged that the statement of Public witness 1. Karam Chand should not be believed because of material discrepancies. According to the learned counsel, this witness stated in his cross-examination that his statement was recorded on the spot of the accident on the same day while Public witness 6 Joginder Mani, S. I. who investigated the case had said that except for the statements of Khalid Hamid and Mohd. Yunis recorded in the hospital at 10. 30 A. M. or so the other witnesses were examined afterwards during investigation. There is no contradiction in these two statements. The Investigating Officer in his examination-in-chief has said that he went to Irwin Hospital on the date of the accident at about 10. 30 A. M. and after recording the statement of the two named witnesses in the hospital, he came back to the spot where the accident had occurred and prepared the site plan and there recorded the other statements which include the statement of Public witness 1 also. Public witness 1 is, therefore, right when he says that his statement was recorded on the spot on the date of accident. The learned counsel then pointed out to that part of the statement of Public witness 4 Khalid Hamid where he had said that statement of Karam Chand was recorded in the hospital. Public witness 1 is, therefore, right when he says that his statement was recorded on the spot on the date of accident. The learned counsel then pointed out to that part of the statement of Public witness 4 Khalid Hamid where he had said that statement of Karam Chand was recorded in the hospital. This obviously is a confusion because Public witness 4 in the earlier part of the same statement has stated that Karam Chand did not go to the hospital at all and that the statement of Karam Chand had been recorded by the police on the spot. I am not, therefore, impressed by the so-called discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel next urged that Karam Chand according to his statement had left the spot of the accident after about 15 minutes and there was nothing on the record to show how the police came to know the name of Karam Chand as an eye witness to the accident. There is no merit in this submission either. Public witness 6, Mohd. Umar in his cross-examination has unambiguously said that out of the persons present at the time of the accident, one was Karam Chand. Khalid Hamid who reached the spot immediately after the accident and who took the deceased to Irwin Hospital has also stated that there were many persons on the spot when he reached there out of whom he knew Mohd. Umar and Karam Cband. Public witness 6, the Investigating Officer, stated that on reaching the hospital he examined Khalid Hamid as well as another person by the name of Mohd. Yunis. In face of the statement of Khalid Hamid that he knew Karam Chand it is idle to suggest that the Investigating officer had no means to know that Karam Chand was present on the spot at the time of accident. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel then pointed out that even though Public witness 4, Khalid Hamid, did state that he knew Karam Chand but Karam Chand himself when asked about Public witness 4 stated that he did not know him. This is not a correct reading of the statement. Karam Chand has said that "the man who took the deceased to the hospital came to bring me. I do not know his name but I can identify him". This is not a correct reading of the statement. Karam Chand has said that "the man who took the deceased to the hospital came to bring me. I do not know his name but I can identify him". This statement of Karam Chand only means that he did not know Khalid Hamid by name but he knew him by face. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel next urged that there was also no evidence on the record to satisfactorily explain how the police came to record the statement of Public witness 7, Mohd. Umar. This witness has stated that he knew Khalid Hamid Public witness 4, earlier as Khalid Hamid resided with him in the mosque. Khalid Hamid was admittedly examined by the Investigating Officer. This completely explains how the police got to know about Public witness 7 and recorded his statement. ( 12 ) LASTLY, the learned counsel argued that there was no evidence that the scooter was being driven rashly or negligently. The submission is without substance. It is admitted in cross-examination by Jaspal Singh who was driving the scooter that he was going from New Delhi Railway Station which he left at about 4. 45 A. M. to Railway Station (Main) Old Delhi, to collect passengers of the train that was to arrive there at 5 A. M. This clearly shows that Jaspal Singh was in a hurry to reach the Railway Station (Main ). It is further in the statement of Public witness 1, the eye witness to the accident as well as Public witness 4, Khalid Hamid who reached the scene immediately after the accident, that the scooter was being driven on the wrong side of the road. There is no rebuttal to this evidence. The mere fact that the scooter was on the wrong side of the road proves negligence on the part of the driver. This evidence thus leaves no doubt that in my mind that the finding of the Tribunal that the scooter was being driven rashly and negligently is completely borne out by the record. ( 13 ) BASING himself on the solitary statement of Jaspal Singh, the learned counsel then urged that scooter No. DLR-4742 was not involved in the accident. No reliance can be placed on the self-serving statement of Jaspal Singh in the face of other direct and circumstantial evidence on the record. ( 13 ) BASING himself on the solitary statement of Jaspal Singh, the learned counsel then urged that scooter No. DLR-4742 was not involved in the accident. No reliance can be placed on the self-serving statement of Jaspal Singh in the face of other direct and circumstantial evidence on the record. Public Witness 1 has unequivocally stated that the deceased was hit by scooter No. DLR-4742 which was the scooter driven by Jaspal Singh. It is then admitted by the appellants that the deceased was taken in this very scooter from the site of the accident first to the Civil Lines Hospital and then to Irwin Hospital by Jaspal Singh. Jaspal Singh remained with the scooter all through in the Irwin Hospital until Public Witness 6, Investigating Officer arrived at the hospital at about 10. 20 A. M. He arrested Jaspal Singh from the hospital and took over his driving licence. There was no occasion for Jaspal Singh and the scooter to continue to remain in the hospital all this time if Jaspal Singh had simply brought the deceased and was not involved in the accident. Not a suggestion was made during cross-examination of Public Witness 6 that Jaspal Singh was in fact arrested four days after the accident. ( 14 ) I have, in these circumstances, no hesitation in affirming the finding of the learned Tribunal that the accident was caused by the scooter driven by Jaspal Singh. ( 15 ) NO other point was urged in this appeal. F. A. O. 173/67. ( 16 ) AS stated earlier, the legal representatives of the deceased in this appeal have assailed the quantum of compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal. ( 17 ) THE legal representatives claimed Rs. 55,000. 00 on account of compensation on the ground that the deceased was about 45 years of age and possessed very good health with a life expectancy upto the age of 90 years and that he was the only earning member of the family which included his mother also and that his income was Rs. 350. 00per month from merchandise and hotel business. The learned Tribunal found that the deceased earned only Rs. 990. 00 per annum from the hotel business and the deceased was not proved to be running any merchandise business. On the basis that he was expected to live for only 10 years more, after deducting Rs. 35. 350. 00per month from merchandise and hotel business. The learned Tribunal found that the deceased earned only Rs. 990. 00 per annum from the hotel business and the deceased was not proved to be running any merchandise business. On the basis that he was expected to live for only 10 years more, after deducting Rs. 35. 00 per month on account of his personal expenses, the Tribunal calculated the pecuniary loss to the legal representatives as a result of the death at the rate of Rs. 570. 00 per annum only. A further deduction of 10 per cent was made on the ground that compensation was payable in lump sum and in the result an amount of Rs. 5,130. 00 was awarded as compensation to the widow and the mother of the deceased in the proportion above stated. ( 18 ) AFTER going through the record, I agree with the Tribunal that there is no satisfactory evidence to prove that the deceased was running merchandise business and was earning income from it. The only evidence on this aspect is the statement of Public Witness 8, Bhiwani Shankar. This witness did not give either the particulars of the alleged business or the place where it was being carried on. In examination-in-chief, he simply stated that the deceased had a shop in Sadar Bazar but neither the number of the shop nor its location was given. In cross-examination he stated that the deceased had invested Rs. 10,000. 00 in the shop but no documentory evidence in the form of account-books or any other record to corroborate this oral statement. ( 19 ) TO prove damages, the legel representatives produced assessment orders Exhibits PI, P2, P3, P4 and P5 which showed income earned by the deceased from hotel business in which he was a partner to the extent of l/8th share but no assessment orders in regard to the alleged income from the shop were produced. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, rightly proceeded to assess compensation on the basis of the proved income of the deceased from the hotel business. ( 20 ) THE compensation payable in such cases has to be just and fair though it cannot be calculated with any mathematical exactitude in terms of rupees or paisas but it is the duty of the court to take into account all the relevant circumstances in making the assessment. ( 20 ) THE compensation payable in such cases has to be just and fair though it cannot be calculated with any mathematical exactitude in terms of rupees or paisas but it is the duty of the court to take into account all the relevant circumstances in making the assessment. ( 21 ) AT the time of accident, the deceased left a widow, appellant No. 1 aged 40 years and the mother aged 65 years. He himself was 45 years of age. The learned Tribunal was influenced by the fact that the mother was an old lady" presumably assuming that she was not likely to survive for any length of time and in regard to the widow the Tribunal said that there were some chances of her re-marriage. It is not denied, however, that appellant No. 1, the widow, has not re-married in spite of lapse of nine years after the accident and the mother, appellant No. 2, is still alive. These become relevant considerations in the background of the fact that the deceased was only 45 years of age. ( 22 ) THE Tribunal has computed compensation on the assumption that the deceased could have survived only for ten more years i. e. upto the age of 55. There is no basis for such an assumption. A number of authorities were cited before me by the learned counsel for the appellants where the life expectancy had been fixed at ages varying from 65 to 70 years. These decisions, however, do not warrant a general rule in this regard and it is unnecessary to set them out in detail. Each case has to be decided on its own facts. In the instant case, there is evidence of longevity in the family. The mother of the deceased who was 65 years old when the accident took place in September, 1965 is still alive. She must now be over 73 years old. Public Witness 8 has stated that the deceased enjoyed very good health and there is no cross-examination of the witness on this point. There is also no other evidence on the record to show that the deceased suffered from my infirmity in body or mind. It is reasonable in these circumstances to assume that the deceased would have lived upto the age of 60 years and in my view compensation should have been calculated on this basis. There is also no other evidence on the record to show that the deceased suffered from my infirmity in body or mind. It is reasonable in these circumstances to assume that the deceased would have lived upto the age of 60 years and in my view compensation should have been calculated on this basis. ( 23 ) THE finding of the Tribunal that the income of the deceased was only Rs. 990. 00 per annum is based on the assessment order of the hotel business relating to the year 1964-65. The other asssessment orders Exhibits PI, P3, P4 and P5 showed that his income fluctuated from year to year. During 1961-62, vide assessment order Exhibit P5, he earned Rs. 1165. 00, during 1962-63, vide assessment order Exhibit P4, Rs. 1010. 00, during 1963-64 vide assessment order Exhibit P3 Rs. 742. 00 and during 1965-66 vide assessment order Exhibit PI Rs. 1233. 00. The benefit of his earnings during all these years went to the family. I see no reason why in a case like this, in order to determine just compensation, a mean of the income of all these years should not have been adopted by the Tribunal. ( 24 ) THE mean of the five years income of the deceased on the basis of the above Figures would come to Rs. 1028. 00 per annum. Deducting a sum of Rs. 35. 00 per month on account of his personal expenses the net amount that he would be considered to be contributing for the maintenance of his family comes to Rs. 608. 00 per annum. Taking his life expectancy to be 60 years for reasons already stated, compensation calculated for fifteen years would work out to Rs. 9,120. 00. ( 25 ) THIS amount is payable in lump sum but in my view the rising prices these days completely offset the advantage of lump sum payment and I consider it will not be just to make any further deduction from the compensation. ( 26 ) APPELLANTS 3 and 4 are major sons of the deceased. It is proved that they are self-earning members. In agreement with the learned Tribunal, I hold that the compensation will be payable only to appellants 1 and 2. Appellant No, 1 shall get Rs. 7000. 00 and appellant No. 2, the mother of the deceased, will get Rs. 2120. 00. It is proved that they are self-earning members. In agreement with the learned Tribunal, I hold that the compensation will be payable only to appellants 1 and 2. Appellant No, 1 shall get Rs. 7000. 00 and appellant No. 2, the mother of the deceased, will get Rs. 2120. 00. ( 27 ) F. A. O. 173 of 1967 is, therefore, 28. There shall be no order as to costs partially accepted and the award of the in both the appeals. Tribunal is modified in the above terms.