JUDGMENT : R.N. Mishra, J.—This is an appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 directed against the award of the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack, asking for enhancement of the compensation. 2. According to the claimants, one Bansidhar Mohanty and some others were sitting under the thatched roof of the shop of one Sankar Jena located on the link road connecting the Cuttack-Paradeep High Way at a place known as Ghangalia Chakanot far away from the Paradeep P.S. at about 9.30 p.m. on 7.7.74. O.R.U. 4591--motor truck--belonging to Dilip Kumar Sabat (Respondent No. 1) which was being driven in a reckless manner and at high speed came from the side of Ghangalia Chaka and turned to the right side of the road and ran over the persons including Bansidhar Mohanty who were sitting there. As a result of the accident, Bansidhar died and two others were injured. Bansidhar's widow and three minor sons and a minor daughter laid claim for compensation of Rs. 47,500/-. The claimants alleged that Bansidhar was a mason earning about Rs. 250/- a month and was contributing a sum of Rs. 150/- a month for the maintenance of the family. He was only 32 years of age and with his death the family has been deprived of the only source of living. The vehicle was admittedly insured with the United India Fire and General Insurance Company Limited (Respondent No. 2) 3. The owner and also the Insurer entered contest. The owner took the stand that the vehicle was not being run rashly and negligently at the relevant time. That at the point of time of the accident, the vehicle was not being driven for the purpose of the owner and that the amount claimed was excessive. The Insurer took the further plea that the driver had no valid licence and the truck had no valid permit. 4. The widow was examined as P. W. 1 and some more witnesses were also examined to support the claim. The Respondent No. 1 examined himself. The Tribunal found that the accident had taken place as alleged and Bansidhar had been run over and killed. He found that the deceased must have been contributing Rs. 4. The widow was examined as P. W. 1 and some more witnesses were also examined to support the claim. The Respondent No. 1 examined himself. The Tribunal found that the accident had taken place as alleged and Bansidhar had been run over and killed. He found that the deceased must have been contributing Rs. 50/- per month for the family and on the basis that he was 32 at the time of death and on the footing that he would have remained active and capable of earning till twenty more years, the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs. 10,000/-. In the absence of challenge, the liability of the Respondents for compensating to the extent awarded has become final. The claimants have further carried the appeal being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation. 5. P. W. 1, the widow, has stated that the deceased was earning about Rs. 8 to Rs. 10/- a day and was sending Rs. 150/- per month for the maintenance of the family. The learned Tribunal has rightly held that a labourer on the average gets about Rs. 150/- a month. A mason certainly earns more. By 1974, the normal remuneration of a mason on daily basis would certainly be in the range of Rs. 8/- to Rs. 10/- as claimed by P. W. 1. It is true that no other witness has spoken about the income of the deceased but there could be no justification for disbelieving P. W. 1. It may be true that for the whole month, the deceased may not have been getting employment. It would, therefore, be reasonable on the basis of the evidence of P. W. 1 to hold that the income of the deceased on the average per month was about Rs. 200/-. 6. The family of the deceased consisted of six persons in all--he himself, his widow, three sons and a daughter. Keeping the size of the family, the status of the deceased and his ordinary living requirements in view, it would be appropriate to hold that he must have been requiring about Rs. 100/- for himself. In fact, the learned Tribunal has recorded such a finding. His contribution to the family would, therefore, have been in the range of Rs. 100/- per month. 7. The Tribunal has found that the deceased was aged 32 at the time of death. 100/- for himself. In fact, the learned Tribunal has recorded such a finding. His contribution to the family would, therefore, have been in the range of Rs. 100/- per month. 7. The Tribunal has found that the deceased was aged 32 at the time of death. There would be no justification for holding that the deceased if he had not died on account of the accident would have earned until he attained the age of 52. Span of life in India has in recent times increased. Ordinarily, even in industrial employment, the age of superannuation is being fixed at the age of 60. It would, therefore, be reasonable to hold that the deceased would have remained active and would have had the capacity of earning until he was 60 years of age. It would mean that he would have earned for twenty eight years more. Thus, his contribution to the family would have worked out at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month for twenty eight years which comes to Rs. 33,600/-. I am prepared to slash the amount by one-sixth keeping in view the uncertainty of life, the fact that the entire compensation was being made available at a time and other uncertainties. The compensation would thus work out at Rs. 28,000/- (Twenty-eight thousand). The claimants shall be entitled to interest on this amount at six percent from the date of the claim till payment They shall also be entitled to costs of the appeal which is assessed at Rs. 100/-. In view of the fact that the vehicle has been insured and the compensation awarded is within the statutory limit, the same shall be borne by the Insurer.