The compensation amount for a fatal accident under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is calculated on the basis of the possible longevity of the deceased and the contribution which he would have made towards the family.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal of the New India Assurance Company against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, dated 19. 1. 1980. The accident took place on 16. 6. 1973, in which one Lekh Raj Singh was killed. The fact of the accident is not disputed by the appellant and, indeed, as an insurance company they cannot challenge the award on merits.

( 2 ) IT is submitted that the Tribunal has assumed that the deceased would have lived upto the age of 65 and has calculated the compensation on that basis. It is submitted that while the dependency of the minor claimants has been computed till the ages of 22 and 24 only, the age of 65 years should not have been computed for the purposes of awarding the compensation. I do not find any substance in this argument as it is not legally tenable. The compensation amount is worked out on the basis of the possible longevity of the deceased and the contribution which he would have made towards the family.

( 3 ) THE second submission is that the daughters of the deceased were married by the time the petition was heard and that fact has not been taken into account by the Tribunal. The marriage of the daughters has relevance to the compensation amount to be paid, but in a different way. In fact, it is one of the considerations in awarding the compensation as to whether the deceased would be required to bear the expenses on the education and marriage of his children. There is no merit in this submission.

( 4 ) IT is then said that on compassionate grounds the widow Angoori Devi was given employment by the N. C. E. R. T. and this fact has been ignored by the Tribunal. This contention also has no merit. The amount of compensation paid is due to the tortious liability and has nothing to do with the employment given to the members of the family on compassionate grounds.

( 5 ) IT is then submitted that the Tribunal was not competent under law to award interest. This submission is contrary to the provisions of section 110-CC of the Act.

( 6 ) THERE is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

( 7 ) IN this appeal cross-objections were filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. They had claimed Rs. 1,20,000. 00 towards the compensation. The Tribunal, however, awarded Rs. 43,200. 00 as compensation.

( 8 ) THE accident took place on 16. 6. 1973 in which Lekh Raj Singh died. It was an accident involving two trucks, namely, DLG 9471 and HRG 8750. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused by the negligence of both the trucks and, therefore, apportioned the liability between them. It was held that truck No. DLG 9471 was liable to pay 75% compensation and truck No. HRG 8750 was liable to pay 25% compensation. The unfortunate part of the claim proceeding is that the claimants could not trace the driver and the owner of truck No. HRG 8750. The registration of this truck was in Haryana. They could not locate the truck or the insurance company with which the truck was insured. I will, therefore, proceed on the basis of 75% liability of truck No. DLG 9471 for the purpose of this cross-objection.

( 9 ) AT the time of the death the deceased was working as a class IV employee in N. C. E. R. T. The N. C. E. R. T. is governed by the same pay scales and rules as the Central Government servants are. The age of retirement was 60. At the time of the accident the deceased was of 30 years. The Third Pay Commission Report in regard to enhancement of pay scales became applicable from 1. 1. 1973 and, therefore, the deceased was entitled to the said pay scale and allowances as fixed by the Third Pay Commission. According to the said new scales the deceased was entitled to draw Rs. 348. 40 as his salary per month. The Tribunal has correctly assessed Rs. 250. 00 as contribution by the deceased to his family. However, the Tribunal has fallen in error in taking 16 as a multiplier. I hold that the multiplier of 30 should be a proper multiplier in this case. The reasons are that I