The railway administration is liable for damages caused by the negligence of its employees.

( 1 ) - Regular First Appeals Nos. 90-D/ 56 and 121-D/1956 raise common questions of law and fact. They relate to a common incident that took place on March 16, 1952, at about 4 a. m. when railway engine No. 1175 belonging to the defendants collided with lorry No. DLB 1946 at railway crossing gate No. CI-2 in mile No. 2/15 on Delhi Kamal railway line. As a result of that accident two persons, by names, Tirath Singh and Nanoo died instantaneously.

( 2 ) REGULAR First Appeal No. 90-D of 1956 arises from suit No. 260 of 1954 on the file of the learned Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi. That was a suit filed by the widow and. the son of the deceased Tirath Singh. In that suit the Court below granted a decree for a sunn of Rs. 45,000. 00 against the defendants as damages resulting from the accident, mentioned above.

( 3 ) REGULAR First Appeal 121 D/ of 1956 arises from suit No. 259 of 1956 on the file of the same Judge. That was suit filed by the widow of Nanoo claiming damages as a result of the accident, referred to already. In that suit the Court below decreed a sum of Rs. 22,500. 00 in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants.

( 4 ) THE case for the plaintiffs in the two suits was that due to the gross negligence on the part of the servants of the defendants, the accident, in question, took place and, therefore, the defendants were liable to pay damages to the heirs of the deceased persons. The defendants contended that there was no gligence on the part of their servants. They also pleaded that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased persons. They further pleaded that the amount claimed as damages was excessive, On the pleadings, the following issues were framed-

(1) Whether the accident arose on account of the negligence of the employees of the defendants? (2) Whether the driver had a motor driving licence ? If not, to what effect ? (3) Whether the driver was guilty of contributory negligence ? If so, to what effect ? (4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages and compensation ? If so. to what amount ? (5) Whether valid notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code, was served upon the defendants? 6. Relief. The court below found against the defendants on all the issues Nos. 1 to 5. There is satisfactory evidence on record to show that at the time of the accident the gate of the level crossing was open ; there was no light fixed on the gate ; there was also no light in the engine. On these points we have the evidence of Mansa Ram and Hazara Singh. There evidence has not been in any manner damaged in cross-examination. That evidence has been accepted by the court below. We see no reason to differ from the conclusion of the Court below on that point.

( 5 ) THERE is evidence to show that deceased Tirath Singh had a driving licence. The defendants have failed to establish that the driver of the lorry was guilty of contributory negligence. The contention that there was no valid notice under section 80, Code of Civil Procedure, was not pressed before us.

( 6 ) THE only question, on which elaborate arguments were advanced before us, was the one relating to the quantum of damages. Deceased Tirath Singh was aged 30 Years at the time of his death. It is satisfactorily proved by the evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 6 that at the time of his death, he was getting a monthly salary of Ps. 150. 00. That evidence was neither challenged in cross-examination nor rebutted by any other evidence. The deceased left behind him- his young widow and four minor children. They were all depending on him. The Court below came to the conclusion that in the normal course he could have been expected to live till the age of 55 years. It accordingly fixed the damages at Rs. 45,000. 00.

( 7 ) DECEASED Nanoo was also aboat 30 years of age at the time. of his death. He was a coolie by profession. Evidence has been adduced to show that at the time of his death, he was earning Rs. 2. 50 P. to Rs. 3. 00 per day. The trial Court, came