Judgment 1. This appeal under Sec.110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"), arises from the order of the Claims Tribunal, Madhubani. 2. Deceased, Ramendra Prasad Mishra alias Rabindra Mishra, son of respondent No. 1, was travelling in a bus bearing Registration No. BRG 5079 belonging to the appellant from Darbhanga to Pandaul and on the way he met with an accident as the bus dashed against a pole resulting in fatal head injury to the deceased. An application for claim was, accordingly, filed by his mother, widow and other claimants before the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. The Tribunal, however, awarded Rs. 67,000 only. 3. Mr. S. C. Ghose, appearing for the appellant, has urged two points, namely : (i) The liability of the insurance company, which has been fixed at Rs. 5,000 only, should have been fixed at Rs. 50,000; and (ii) The amount of compensation is inflated. So far as the first submission is concerned, it must be accepted in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Motor Owners Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Jadavji Keshavji Modi, AIR 1981 SC 2059 ; [1981] ACJ 507 ; [1982] 52 Comp Cas 454 (SC), and a decision of this court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Chhunnu Ram, AIR 1984 Pat 1 ; [1986] 59 CompCas 315 (Pat) to which one of us was a party, wherein it has been held that the total statutory liability of the insurance company could be, even in case of one passenger, according to the amendment made in the Act by Act No. 56 of 1969, up to Rs. 50,000 for a bus having seating capacity up to 30 passengers, and Rs. 75,000 beyond 30 passengers up to 60 passengers. There is no evidence on the record of this case to show as to what was the prescribed seating capacity of the bus in question. In that view of the matter, let us take the lowest seating capacity of the bus for the purpose of determining the liability of the insurance company and that it takes up to a sum of Rs. 50,000. 4 The Supreme Court has already decided that the whole amount can be paid to even one passenger. In that view of the matter, the liability for compensation in question up to the extent of Rs. 50,000. 4 The Supreme Court has already decided that the whole amount can be paid to even one passenger. In that view of the matter, the liability for compensation in question up to the extent of Rs. 50,000 must be saddled on the shoulders of the insurance company (respondent No. 4). 5. Now, coming to the question of compensation, it was submitted that the amount has been computed by the Tribunal only on guess work. It is well-known that even if there are cogent materials, some amount of guess work has to be applied. In order to resolve the controversy, we should give some relief to the appellant by taking into consideration a very short question. The Tribunal has taken the span of life of the deceased, who was aged about 25 years only at the time of accident, as 65 years and on that basis it has calculated the compensation on the basis of 40 years earning period. We think it proper to reduce the span of active life from 65 years to 60 years and taking into consideration the various contingencies, including the illness of the deceased and going on leave, etc., we reduce the earning period by five years. According to the calculation of the Tribunal itself, the amount of compensation would thus be reduced by Rs. 8,500, being l/8th of the total length of the expected span of earning period determined by the Tribunal. The amount of compensation, thus reduced by this sum of Rs. 8,500, remains at Rs. 58,500 only. 6. The award is, therefore, modified to this extent that instead of Rs. 67,000, the amount of compensation would be Rs. 58,500. The liability of the insurance company is fixed at Rs. 50,000 and the remaining amount of Rs. 8,500 should be paid by the appellant. The liability of the insurance company to pay interest on the enhanced liability would commence only from today. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part as indicated above. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.