( 1 ) IT is indeed unfortunate that this First Appeal against the rejection of the claim of the legal representatives of Gurdev Singh, deceased, who was killed on the evening of 20-4-1967 at Rohtak Road, Delhi, as a result of an accident caused by car No. DLJ-6212, is coming up for hearing after 17 years of the incident, and the discussion as hereinafter will show, the legal representatives were denied their substantial legitimate compensation by unwarranted, unsustainable and a sort of wooden approach adopted by Shri P. S. Shukia, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

( 2 ) THE legal representatives had sought compensation of Rs. 80,000. 00

( 3 ) GURDEV Singh was fun over at about 5. 30 P. M. on 20. 4. 67 in front of Anup Service Station, Rohtak Road, Delhi when he was going on a cycle from his office to his home. Car bearing No. DLJ 6212 driven by Dharam Singh, respondent, came,from the opposite direction,, and went to the wrong side of the road and knocked him down. At that. time he was three steps aways from the left end of the road. It was, the refore, apparent that the accident took place by the act of rash and negligent driving by Dharam Singh, and Gurdev Singh was seriously injured when he was going on the cycle on almost, extreme left side of the road. The Tribunal had after considering the entire evidence come to the opinion, that the accident was the,direct result of the rash and negligent driving of the car, and after going through the same, I am firmly in. agreement with the findings given. The evidenpe. of the witnesses and the plan which was. prepared displaying the place where the accident took place, and how the car had gone to the wrong side and then proceeded fairly ahead after knocking down Gurdev Singh, leave no manner of doubt in this regard. In fact, no appearance was made by Dharam Singh at the time of the hearing of this appeal, and. the lnsurance Company too did not assail, in any manner the finding of fact attributing entire negligence to the car driver,

( 4 ) IT is with regard to the disallowance of any compensation to the legal representatives that the arguments have been addressed. Gurdev Singh was 34 years of age when the accident took place, and. he. died on the next day as a result of the same in Willingdon Hospital. He left behind his. widow and three children between the ages 8 years and 13 years, and old parents who-are now both over 80 years of age. They voluntarily stated that the compensation be paid to the widow and the children of the deceased.

( 5 ) AT the time of his death, Gurdev Singh was employed as an electrical fitter in the Railways,. and was. drawing Rs. 230. 00 per. month. It was also claimed by the,legal representatives that he had some extra income by way of photography, and in this regard two witnesses were examined, namely, Ishar Dayal Sharma, (P. W. 15) and Ishar Singh (P. W. 17), who stated that he had taken photographs at special functions at their house for which he was paid. In this manner, he was said to be earning Rs. 80. 00 per month.

( 6 ) THE Tribunal took into account that the deceased would have normally lived upto the age of 65 years, but observed that. it could not. be said that he could have earned after his retirement from the service. The computable period during which he could have earned, was, therefore, taken to be 23 years only. The Tribunal next proceeded to compute the loss in salary which resulted from his death, and in doing so unwarrantedly reduced his salary of Rs. 230. 00 to half on the ground that the other half would have been spent by him on himself. Why he was treated so selfish was not explained. The pecuniary loss computed. at the rate of Rs. 115. 00 per month, for 23 years was taken to be Rs. 31,740 -. From this were deducted the provident fund and gratuity which were obtained by the legal representatives from his employer, and the small savings that he or his wife had. made during his life time. Another amount of Rs. 8. 000. 0