JUDGMENT : Guman Mal Lodha, J.—This appeal has been filed by Mohanlal, the owner of the vehicle No. USO 4031 and the New India Assurance Company Limited, its insurer, challenging the award on the ground that the amount awarded is excessive and the cross-objections have also been filed in this appeal, by Mrs. Shanti Devi challenging the award with the request and prayer that the amount awarded must be increased because it is inadequate. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that Mrs. Shanti Devi's husband, Satya Narain, a young man of 29 years of age, who was teacher in the education department, died in the accident and Mohanlal was the owner of the vehicle which has been held to be responsible for this accident. 3. The finding of the Tribunal regarding rashness and negligence is not challenged, therefore, it is not necessary to discuss in detail, the evidence. 4. The only point raised by Mr. Srivastava that the calculation of Rs. 50,000/- is not correct on the basis of the income which was said to be Rs. 336/- per month at the time of the accident of the deceased. 5. Mr. Lodha, appearing on behalf of the claimants, on the contrary submitted that in view of the fact that the deceased was only 29 years of age and he was teacher in the education department and was well qualified being M.A.B.Ed., the compensation should have been atleast one lac rupees. 6. Mr. Srivastava submitted that the claimants have not led any evidence to show that the deceased would have got any promotion and more income thereafter and further what would have been the tenure of the service in such cases. On a close scrutiny of the entire evidence, it appears that, the widow of the deceased in her cross-examination admitted that her husband used to get Rs. 336/- at the time of that unfortunate accident and out of them Rs. 100-125 used to be spent by him on his own self. 7. It would thus be seen that the dependents of the deceased used to get Rs. 211/- per month from him. 8. No evidence has been led by the Applicant to show that the deceased would have received any increment during tenure of service. 100-125 used to be spent by him on his own self. 7. It would thus be seen that the dependents of the deceased used to get Rs. 211/- per month from him. 8. No evidence has been led by the Applicant to show that the deceased would have received any increment during tenure of service. The Tribunal has held that the superannuation age normally is 55 years and the deceased would have earned this amount for another 25 years. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the compensation should have been allowed in the present case by multiplying Rs. 211/- for 25 years which comes to Rs. 63,300/- . 9. The deduction allowed by the Tribunal on the ground that the dependents would get interest, appears to me wholly unjustified. In the present times, the spiral of prices and increase in price index constantly has reduced the real value of rupee. 10. Punjab and Haryana High Court in Joki Ram Vs. Smt. Naresh Kanta and Others, held that no such deduction should be made on the expectancy of the interest. Consequently, in the result, the joint appeal of the insurance company and the vehicle owner is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,000/- . 11. The cross-objections of the claimants are therefore, accepted to the limited extent that instead of Rs. 50,000/- the amount of compensation would be Rs. 63,300/- but the liability of the insurance company would be limited to Rs. 50,000/- only for indemnifying the owner of the vehicle. 12. So far as the cross-objections are concerned, the parties would bear their own costs. 13. The amount of Rs. 50,000/- has been deposited by the insurance company as per information conveyed by the Learned Counsel for the insurance company, out of this Rs. 10,000/- with interest should be paid at the time of the marriage of Miss Shobha Kumari daughter of the deceased and the balance of the amount alongwith the enhanced amount of compensation with interest can be recovered and withdrawn from the bank by the claimants immediately.