SEN, J:- This is an appeal by the claimants against the judgment and order of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Darrang Tezpur. with regard to the compensation claimed by them for the death of Abdul Mazid, the husband and father of the claimants.

2. It is not disputed that Abdul Mazid was killed as a result of an acci­dent, arising from the impact of a motor cycle driven by Corporal G. S. Tiwana of 18 P & S Flight. C/o. 99 A. R. O. It is also not in dispute that the accident was caused through negligent driving of Corporal G. S. Tiwana. while in the course of his employment under the Union of India, and that the Union of India is vicariously liable for such negli­gence and its consequence.

3. The only point that falls for consideration in this appeal is the deter­mination of the life expectancy, for com­putation of the quantum of the award. The claim petition will show that the claim was founded on the basis of an expectancy of life of 25 years more i.e. upto the attainment of 60 years of age by the deceased. The learned Tribunal, however, held that the expectancy of life of the deceased should be taken to be only for 20 years i. e. up to the age of 55 years. In this, possibly, the learned Tri­bunal was guided by the decision in Suman v. The G. M. M. P. State Road. Transport, reported in 1970 Ace CJ 280 (Madh-Pra) to which the learned Senior Government Advocate has also invited 'our attention. In that case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court awarded compensa­tion on the basis of 23 years of life expectancy of a person who died at the age of 32 years. In that case, the person was however a Government servant, who would normally have retired at the age of 55 years and after which his earning capacity would cease or diminish to a great extent. In the instant case, the deceased was not a Government servant. We are of the opinion that considering the state of health of the people in gene­ral, it can be fairly held that expectancy of life of a normal man would be at least up to 60 years of age. That was the view taken by the Delhi High Court in Isihwar Devi v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1969 Delhi 183. Their Lordships observed that "The deceased was aged about 40 years at the time of his death and was stated to be in good health. It can. therefore, be re­asonably assumed that but for the acci­dent he would have lived up to the age of 60 years i.e. for a further period of 20 years." After considering the matter very carefully, we are of the opinion that the normal expectancy of life of an average healthy person should be taken to be at least 60 years and the compensation should ordinarily be computed on that basis.

4. The principles determining the grant of compensation were very lucidly elucidated in Nance v British Columbia Electric Rly. Co. Ltd., 1951 AC 601 by Viscount Simon, who observed as fol­lows:-

"It would be seen from the said mode of estimate that many imponder­ables enter into the calculation. There­fore, the actual extent of the pecuniary loss to the respondents may depend upon data which cannot' be ascertained accu­rately, but must necessarily be an esti­mate, or even partly a conjecture. Shortly stated, the general principle is that the pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing on the one hand the loss to the claimants of the future pecuniary benefit and on the other any pecuniary advantage which from whatever source comes to them by reason of the death i.e. the balance of loss and gain to a depen­dent by the death must be ascertained " Considering the test laid down above, which has also been approved by their Lordships in the Supreme Court, we hold that a just and fair calculation of the compensation would be what the bene­ficiaries would have received from the deceased as support for their maintenance and also as inheritance from his savings, had the deceased lived and earned to the age of 60 years. In that -view of the matter, we are inclined to hold that the learned Tribunal fell into an error by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document