Short Note : 1. This is an appeal by the petitioner Smt. Bhagwati Sen Gupta against the award dated 9.10.1974 of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg at Rajnandgaon, dismissing her entire claim. 2. The petitioner's claim is thus: The petitioner Smt. Bhagwati Sen Gupta is the widow of Dr. S.S. Sen Gupta. Dr. Sen Gupta retired from service as Assistant Medical Officer since 15.7.1971. His last place of posting was Ambikapur, District Sarguja and at the time of retirement, he was getting Rs. 277.50 P.M. as pay. Dr. Sen Gupta had proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement with the intention of starting private practice at Bhilai Nagar. He was temporarily staying at Supela Ramnagar, Tahsil Durg with his wife the petitioner. 3. Regarding the compensation, the Claims Tribunal, after taking into account the various factors held that at the most the petitioner was entitled to Rs. 7,500. In calculating this amount the span of life of the deceased has been fixed at 65 years. In our opinion the normal span of life in case of the deceased's family should have been fixed at 70 years. Dr. Sen Gupta died at the age of 55 and at that time he was hale and hearty. Laxminarayan (AW-2) is the brother of the deceased. His present age was 52 years. He stated that his eldest brother was 70 years old and his father did at the age of 75 years. There is practically no cross-examination on this point. On the evidence as it stands, it will be safe to hold that the normal span of life of the deceased and his family members was 70 years. 4. Shri R.K. Thakur, Advocate for the respondents contended that the petitioner was entitled to nothing because advantages which she would receive because of the death of Dr. Sen Gupta will have to be adjusted against the amount of calm sought to be awarded. He relied upon S.D. Joshi and Others vs. Union of India, 1975 ACJ 518 , Sushila Devi and Others vs. Ibrahim and Another, 1974 ACJ 150 , Hajizakaria and Others vs. Naoshir Cama and Others, 1976 ACJ 320 and Nimayi Chand Mahapatra and Others vs. Kartika Chandra Sahu and Others, 1977 ACJ 587. We have no dispute with the proposition that the pecuniary benefits which the petitioner will receive on the death of Dr. Sen Gupta will need adjustment. We have no dispute with the proposition that the pecuniary benefits which the petitioner will receive on the death of Dr. Sen Gupta will need adjustment. But in this case as discussed by the Claims Tribunal, the petitioner must have received mental shock because of the death of her husband and has been deprived of shelter and maintenance throughout the remaining part of her life. The mental torture to a wife and loss of company because of the accidental death of her husband cannot be in any measure small. Thus she is entitled to the compensation not only for the reasons given by the Claims Tribunal but also she will continue to suffer mental pain and torture throughout the rest of the life. Taking the normal span of life of the deceased at 70, the compensation which will be payable to the petitioner would come to round about Rs. 10,000. In view of the above, we are of the view that the Claims Tribunal recorded the wrong findings which could not be sustained in appeal. 1975 ACJ 518 , 1974 ACJ 150 , 1976 ACJ 320 and 1977 ACJ 58 relied on. Appeal partly allowed.