The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of contributory negligence principles, determination of compensation, and the liability of the insurance company under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

( 1 ). This appeal and cross-objections arise out of a judgment of a learned single Judge of this court passed in FAO 230/79 and 231/79 arising out of an award made on 31/07/1979 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. FAO 230/79 which was filed by the appellant, was allowed in part and FAO 231/79 filed by the respondents, was dismissed.

( 2 ). The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. On 26/08/1974, the deceased Prem Chand Gupta was going in car no. DLJ-4598 driven by respondent No. 3 following the truck driven by respondent No. 1 when the said truck suddenly stopped in the middle of the road allegedly without giving any signal or indication and both the vehicles collided together resulting into the death of shri Prem Chand Gupta and another occupant of the car. Both the vehicles were comprehensively insured with Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, now known as Oriental Insurance Company Limited.

( 3 ). The learned Tribunal, having regard to the materials which were placed on records by the parties, held that the accident took place as a result of contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the truck as also the owner of the car. In so far as the negligence is concerned, it was held to have been committed on the part of both the driver of the truck as also the driver of the car, the liability wherefor was apportioned in the ratio of 75:25 respectively.

( 4 ). The learned Tribunal, having regard to the age of the deceased at the time of the accident, his age of retirement, his annual income, used the multiplier of 20 and directed damages at Rs. 1,31,040. 00. A sum of Rs. 32,400. 00 was deducted which was payable by way of pecuniary gain to the widow of the deceased and allowed further deduction of 15% of the lumpsum payment of Rs. 14,709. 00 pursuant whereto, an award of rs. 83,356/- in the afore-mentioned premise was passed.

( 5 ). Appeals were filed both by the claimant as also the driver/owner and the insurer jointly. The learned single Judge having regard to the rival contentions raised by the parties, upheld the findings of the learned Tribunal as regard fixation of proportionate liability on contributory negligence of the drivers of the truck and the car.

( 6 ). However, as regard the amount of compensation payable in favour of the claimants, the learned single Judge, having regard to the rate of inflation and consequent fall in the value of the rupee, held that the deductions on account of family pension etc. as also deduction for lumpsum payment, was not justified. Having regard to the age of the deceased and increase in the age of superannuation as also the probability in the rise in salaries of the deceased, the learned single Judge held that had the deceased been alive, he would have; received a sum of Rs. l1,70,789 during his service career by way of salary and thus, would have been entitled even to receive pension at the rate of Rs. 4,000. 00 per month. It was, therefore, held that the amount of Rs. five lakhs which was claimed as compensation was on the lower side. Learned Judge, however, assessed the salary of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 1500. 00 per month i. e. Rs. 18,000. 00 per annum and used the multiplier of 22 and awarded a sum of Rs. 3,96,000. 00. As regards interest, it was held:

"the Tribunal has only awarded interest on the condition that in case the respondents did not pay the awarded amount within 60 days, the appellants shall become entitled to recover interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the respondents till realization. This indeed is hot the correct position of law. The appellants are held entitled to interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of application before the Tribunal till the date of realization. The amount which is now awarded in favour of the appellants shall be paid in the same proportion i. e. in the ratio of 75 per cent and 25 per cent respectively by the respondents for the reasons as indicated in the earl