SOONOO KEKE PATEL Vs. BISNATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two First Appeals From Order have been preferred against the award dated 30th Sept., 1977 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur, in Claim Case No. 1 of 1967.

(2.) ONE K. D. Patel was, at the time of accident in question on 27th March, 1967, travelling on a taxi. The taxi met with an accident with a truck owned by one Bishwanath Singh. K. D. Patel on account of the accident died on the spot. His widow and two daughters made a claim for compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Apart from impleading Bishwanath Singh, the owner of the truck, and Babu Ram, the driver of the truck, as the opposite parties, the claimants impleaded Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. as an opposite party. The claim was contested by the owner of the truck. The Tribunal, however, after taking into consideration the evidence produced by the parties allowed the claim for recovery of Rs. 42,500/- against Bishwanath Singh, the owner of the truck, and Babu Ram, the driver of the truck. The Tribunal also made an observation that Bishwanath Singh will be indemnified by the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- which was its statutory liability. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award the claimants have preferred First Appeal From Order No. 21 of 1978 for enhancement of the amount of compensation whereas Bishwanath Singh, the owner of the truck, has preferred First Appeal From Order No. 313 of 1978 with a prayer for setting aside the award and for dismissing the claim petition. Bishwanath Singh died during the pendency of these appeals and his legal representatives have been substituted in both these appeals.

(3.) HAVING heard counsel for the parties we are of opinion that the submissions made by counsel for the claimant-appellants deserves to be accepted. With regard to the life-expectancy it would be useful to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Manjushri v. B. L. Gupta, AIR 1977 SC 1158. In paragraph 8 of the report it has been held that in the present economic conditions the life of an average Indian has increased more than two-fold. It is, therefore, reasonable to expect that if the deceased had not died due to accident, he would have lived at least upto the age of 65 years, if not more. We have been taken through the evidence on record with regard to the age of the members of the family of the deceased. HAVING considered the same we are of opinion that the evidence does not justify taking a view that the life expectancy of the deceased would have been more than 65 years as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Manjushri (supra). We, therefore, proceed on the basis that had the accident not taken place the deceased would have lived atleast upto the age of 65 years. On the finding that there was no age of superannuation in the mills where the deceased was working and that the deceased was enjoying a good health it can safely be held that had the deceased not met with the accident he would have been in the service of the mills upto the age of 65 years and the amount of compensation deserves to be calculated on that basis.