JUDGMENT - H.H. KANTHARIA, J.:---The first respondent, Udechand Ramchandra Luniya (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff), filed Special Civil Suit No. 49 of 1979 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara for compensation of Rs. 51,600.76 ps. on account of a motor car accident in which he was involved at the hands of the second respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the second defendant") who was driving the motor car belonging to the appellant (hereinafter referred as "the first defendant") i.e. State of Maharashtra. It was the case of the plaintiff that on October 9,1975 at about 4.00 p.m. while he was proceeding on a bicycle by the extreme left side of the Satara-Koregaon road towards village Mahuli, the ambassador car driven by the second defendant gave him a forcible dash on account of which he fell down and received serious injuries to his right leg, on his head and he also sustained some minor injuries on the other parts of his body. The plaintiff further contended that he was dragged by the said vehicle for a distance of about 15 to 20 feet and he had become unconscious. He was removed to Civil Hospital, Satara where he regained consciousness on the next day and on the advice of Dr. Gondhalekar of the Civil Hospital he was taken to Pune for further treatment where he was admitted as an indoor patient in the Charitable hospital of Dr. Motwani. He also contended that on account of the fracture to his right leg, he was required to go to Pune every month for treatment and check up and had thus gone to Pune on six occasions. His case was that due to the injuries received by him in the accident he had permanently become disable and was prevented from performing his normal duties by moving about on a bicycle and collecting dues from various cloth merchants of Satara. According to him, his monthly income was Rs. 200.00 to Rs. 250.00. He claimed special damages of Rs. 10,100.76 ps. and Rs. 1,500/- as fees of the doctor. He also claimed general damages to the tune of Rs. 40,000/-. 2. The suit of the plaintiff was resisted by the first defendant. According to him, his monthly income was Rs. 200.00 to Rs. 250.00. He claimed special damages of Rs. 10,100.76 ps. and Rs. 1,500/- as fees of the doctor. He also claimed general damages to the tune of Rs. 40,000/-. 2. The suit of the plaintiff was resisted by the first defendant. State of Maharashtra, on the ground that it was not true that the plaintiff was slowly going by the left side of the road on his bicycle and that the second defendant was driving the car rashly and negligently at the time of the accident. The first defendant denied the income of the plaintiff being Rs. 250/- per month and also that the plaintiff was required to go to Pune six times for medical treatment. It was denied by the first defendant that the second defendant was on duty at the time of the accident. 3. The second defendant who was the driver of the vehicle resisted the claim of the plaintiff contending that he was not responsible for the accident. He contended that he was not driving the car rashly and negligently and on the contrary he was quite careful in driving the car at the time of the accident. According to him, it was the plaintiff who was bicycling rashly and negligently and was responsible for the accident. 4. On such pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge of the trial Court framed necessary issues and on appreciation of the evidence adduced before him he came to the conclusion that the plaintiff did prove that on October 9,1975 at about 4.00 p.m.he met with an accident at Satara while going on a bicycle towards Krishnanagar on account of rash and negligent driving of the car by the second defendant. The learned trial Judge also held that the plaintiff could prove that on account of the said accident he could not do his normal work and that but for the accident he would have lived longer doing his normal duties more satisfactorily. The learned trial Judge was, however, of the view that the plaintiff was not entitled to a claim of Rs. 51,600.76 ps. but was entitled to compensation of only Rs. 31.000/-. The contentions raised by and on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were rejected by the learned trial Judge. The learned trial Judge was, however, of the view that the plaintiff was not entitled to a claim of Rs. 51,600.76 ps. but was entitled to compensation of only Rs. 31.000/-. The contentions raised by and on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were rejected by the learned trial Judge. The learned trial Judge passed the impugned judgment and decree accordingly on August 21, 1982 further awarding interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum to the plaintiff on sum of Rs 31,000/- from the date of the suit till realisation of the entire amount and proportionate cost of the suit. 5. Being aggrieved, the Government of Maharashtra filed the present appeal. 6. It must be stated to the credit of Mr. Tated, learned Assistant Government Pleader, that in the facts and circumstances of the case he did not press the appeal on merits. Mr. Tated, however, urged that since the plaintiff would get the lumpsum amount of Rs. 31,000/-, an amount of 1/6th of the total sum of compensation granted to the plaintiff be deducted. In support of his contention Mr. Tated urged that the plaintiff had not lost the full earning capacity and that he could do some work or the other and that there was only loss in his earnings. Mr. Tated relied upon a judgment of Gauhati High Court in case of (Swarnalata Dutta Barua and another v. National Transport India Pvt. Ltd. and another)1, A.I.R. 1974 Gauhati 31, to bring home his point. Now, while interpreting the provisions of section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in the said case had observed : "The appellant could not have been entitled to this lump sum of Rupees 39,900/- if the deceased had been alive. The sum to be awarded is to be spread over a period of years and must be discounted so as to arrive at its equivalent in the form of a lump sum payable at the time of death as damages. Ordinarily one-sixth of the total amount is deducted for fixing the lump sum". With utmost respect to Their Lordships of the Gauhati High Court I am not able to persuade myself to agree with the above observations which were made in the facts and circumstances of the case. Ordinarily one-sixth of the total amount is deducted for fixing the lump sum". With utmost respect to Their Lordships of the Gauhati High Court I am not able to persuade myself to agree with the above observations which were made in the facts and circumstances of the case. Again, in the instant case any deduction would not be justified first of all because the compensation awarded to the plaintiff was too meagre a sum and secondly there is considerable time lag between the day of the accident and the realisation of money by the claimant. Admittedly, the accident had taken place in the year 1975 and till today the plaintiff has not received even a naya paise as and by way of compensation granted to him. It should also be borne in mind that the real value of the amount of compensation by now has fallen almost to zero from the year 1975 till today due to fall in the value of rupee. One would have been able to appreciate the argument of Mr. Tated had the Government of Maharashtra been gracious enough to pay up the amount of compensation awarded to the plaintiff by the trial Court and not delayed the matter by filing the present appeal. The Government of Maharashtra should have been well advised at least in an accident case like the present one where the amount of Compensation was too small a sum for the Government of Maharashtra to contest and pay up the same to the poor claimant whose monthly income was Rs. 200/- to Rs. 250/- per month. It would have been in the fitness of things for the Government of Maharashtra to have desisted from filing this appeal on account of which the matter has been unnecessarily lingered on for so many number of years. The time, money and energy of the State Government could have been well saved had they not preferred this appeal and that would have benefitted the unfortunate victim of the car accident. 7. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed with cost. Appeal dismissed. -----