Judgment

KULDIP SINGH, J.:- Special leave granted.

2. Ram Kishore Pandey - while coming home on a cycle from work -was run over by car No. UPC 8527 on March 3,1970 and died almost instantaneously. He was 29 years of age. He left behind his widow Urmilla Devi and two minor children who were infants. Almost a quarter century has passed by but the unfortunate widow and the orphan children have not as yet been paid a single penny by way of compensation.

3. Urmilla Pandey widow of Ram Kishore Pandey filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal , A Allahbad claiming Rupees 1, 17,747.70 as compensation on account of the death of her husband in the car accident. Khalil Ahmad, the driver of the car; Ram Kishan (dead) through his son Purshottam alias Balwa, the owner of the car; M/s. Chandra Financiers; and the New India Assurance Company were impleaded as respondents before the Tribunal. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place on account of the car being driven rashly and negligently by Khalil Ahmad, the driver of the car. While assessing the compensation the Tribunal held that the age of 58 years at which the deceased would have retired by taken as the life expectancy of the deceased. The Tribunal further found that the deceased was drawing Rupees 259. 10 as his salary -deducting 1/3rd for maintaining himself - he was spending the remaining amount of Rs. 175/- per month on his family. Taking the annual amount to be Rs. 2100/- and multiplying the same by 29, the Tribunal reached the figure of Rs. 60,000/-. Making a deduction for the lump sum payment at the rate of 33 per cent, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 40,600/- as compensation to the family. The Tribunal, however, found that there was no material on the record to prove that the car was insured with the respondent-company. The Tribunal by order dated May 9, 1979 dismissed the claim against the financier and the insurance company and passed a decree for Rs.40,600/- against Purshottam son of late Ram Kishan.

4. Urmilla Pandey and the two children filed appeal against the award of the Tribunal before the Allahabad High Court. Appeal against respondents 1 and 2 (the financier and insurance company) was dismissed on November 4, 1981 for want of steps to serve notice on them. A Division Bench of the High Court heard the appeal against respondents 3 and 4 (owner and driver) on January 4, 1989. The learned Judges declined to set aside the earlier order dismissing the appeal against respondents I and 2 and on further hearing upheld the findings of the Tribunal against the financier and the insurance company. The High Court dealt with the appeal in a cursory manner.

5. This Court on August 9, 1989, passed the following order:-

"In spite of service of notice the respondent No. 2, owner of the vehicle, has not appeared. The owner is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.40,600/- in the Claims Tribunal within six weeks from today, failing which the entire amount shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue and when the money is in deposit, 50% thereof shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the petitioner without furnishing any security. The CMP is disposed of."

6. Despite the above quoted order of this Court, the owner of the vehicle did not deposit any amount before the Tribunal. The appellant in I. A. No. 2/ 1990 has stated that the owner has pleaded bankruptcy. The matter was also taken up by the Lok Adalat on November 19,1989 when it was held in the premises of this Court. Unfortunately, no relief was granted to the appellant even by the Lok Adalat.

7. This Court on November 12, 1990 issued notice to the New India Assurance Company Ltd. calling upon the company to show cause why the company should not be made to pay the award money. On September 6, 1993, this Court passed the following order:-

"The respondents to take notice as to why the compensation awarded by the courts below be not enhanced. The learned counsel for the Insurance company seeks a