R. C. Laboti. J.-

l. Human life is invaluable but the Tribunal has held, it has no value. A claim petition has been dismissed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal holding that a sole bread earner of a family of four grown-ups has not been proved to he earning anything. In appeal, this much is only under challenge.

2. It has been found proved by the Tribunal that on 4-8-75 late Sadaqat Hussain, aged 40 years, was travelling in a bus owned by respondent No. 1 and driven by respondent No.2. It met with an accident, occasioned by grossly negligent act of the driver resulting into instantaneous death of Sadaqat Hussain. The Tribunal also held that the deceased would have lived for another 20 years, had he not died an untimely death because the life expectancy could reasonably be fixed at 60. These findings are in favour of the claimants who are related to the deceased respectively as widow - mother, brother who has just come up of age and sister unmarried but of a marriageable age. The claimants/appellants do not obviously dispute these findings and the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents does not also dispute the correctness thereof and, in our opinion, rightly so, for the findings are passed on evidence and no other inference could possibly have been drawn.

3. The case of the claimants was that the deceased was serving as a teacher at a Government Primary School, wherefrom he was getting a salary of Rs. 300, - per month. The deceased used to earn additionally around Rs. 250/- per month, over and above his salary, by imparting tutorials privately. The Tribunal held that the claimants had not produced any certificate from the school to demonstrate the employment of the deceased and the salary that was paid to him, and hence the salary of the deceased could not be held to have been Rs. 300/- per month. In so far as earnings by way of tution-fee are concerned, the Tribunal held that Mustaq Ahmed (P.W. 2), the only witness examined on the point could not be believed because his own earning on his own saying, was Rs. 600/- per month, with a family of seven to support and so it could not be believed that he could have paid a tution-fee of Rs. 100/-per month to the deceased apart from school fee of his children. Except this, there was no other evidence. It is the correctness of these findings which is to be examined. In our opinion, for the reasons to follow the Tribunal committed a serious error of law in holding that the deceased was not earning anything.

4. All the three claimants appeared in the witness-box as P.W. 8, P. W. 1 and P W. 9 respectively. All the three deposed that the deceased was a school teacher serving at a Government primary School. They all deposed that they were depending on the deceased and the latter was sustaining the whole family. The deceased was certainly not a bagger nor an unemployed. No cross - examination has been directed at the testimony on oath of these witnesses on this point. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination of these witnesses to hold that the factum of the deceased being a school teacher could be disbelieved. There appears to be no reason to hold that the mother, brother and sister of the deceased would not know the calling of their such a close relation and if they knew it, then would tell a lie about it, for no reason. It should have been held relying on the high preponderance of probability created by the unrebutted testimony of these witnesses that the deceased Sedaqat Hussain was serving as a teacher in primary school.

5. Having held so, the question remaining is one of determining the salary which he was receiving at the time of his death. The Tribunal adopted a cut-short approach and rejected the claim petition by holding that the claimants having failed in producing a certificate from the employer, salary paid to the deceased could not be determined. In our opinion, the Tribunal failed in discharging its legal obligation of determining the amount