JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Insurer is the Appellant u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short "the Act'). 2. On 21.7.1982, deceased Kali Prasad Tripathy, an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police attached to Jarada Police Station in Ganjam District, was going as the pillion rider on the motor cycle driven by the Officer-in-charge of that police station. At about 10 a.m. when they were returning to Jarada from village Tumba near village Panchasmba, they approached a blind curve on the road and the Officer-in-charge could not see a passenger bus coming from the other direction. The bus which was coming at a high speed while taking turn dashed against the motor cycle, as result of which, both the Officer-in-charge and the deceased were thrown out. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on account of which his widow and old parents filed an application u/s 110-A of the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 1,75,000/-. The death resulting from the accident, the ownership of the bus and the motor cycle and the insurance with the Appellant are not in dispute. The owners of the bus and the motorcycle having contested, the scope of objection of the Appellant is much limited u/s 96(2) of the Act. Accordingly, there is no scope for the Appellant to challenge the finding that the driver of the bus was negligent to the extent of 75% and the driver of the motor cycle was negligent to the extent of 25%. 3. The Tribunal computed the compensation at Rs. 72,000/- to be the contribution of the deceased to the family during his service career. From out of it, the Tribunal deducted one-sixth towards the benefit of lump sum payment and future uncertainties. Thus, the Tribunal determined the compensation at Rs. 45,000/- payable by the owner of the bus towards 75% of the liability of loss of dependency during the period of service of the deceased. It added Rs. 5,000/- more towards post-retirement contribution of the deceased to the family and directed Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the insurer to the claimants. The Tribunal exercised the power u/s 110-B of the Act by apportioning the total compensation of Rs. 50,000/- among the widow and Rs. 20,000/- being equally divided between the parents, aged 76 and 72 years. 4. Mr. 50,000/- to be paid by the insurer to the claimants. The Tribunal exercised the power u/s 110-B of the Act by apportioning the total compensation of Rs. 50,000/- among the widow and Rs. 20,000/- being equally divided between the parents, aged 76 and 72 years. 4. Mr. P. Roy, the learned Counsel for the insurer Appellant, submitted that the apportionment of the compensation among the widow and the parents of the deceased is wholly contrary to law. In support of his submission Mr. Roy submitted that the average longevity of a male in India is 70 years and a female is 65 years as has been accepted by various courts. The parents having exceeded that age ought not to have been awarded any compensation. Apparently, his submission is attractive, but on close scrutiny it is without any substance. A legal representative is entitled to the compensation till he remains alive. The average life span is taken into consideration for computation of the lump sum compensation towards contribution to the family. That basis would not be available where there are several claimants, some of whom have crossed the average life span. In case the parents would not be available to be the dependants of the earning members, the widow would get the entire benefit. Therefore, there is no scope for the insurer to challenge the apportionment among the widow and the parents. 5. The only contention urged by Mr. P. Roy having failed, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred). Final Result : Dismissed