M.R.Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will also dispose of F. A O No 60 of 1974. Naib Singh deceased, Assistant Manager Cooperative Marketing Union Ltd.. Rajpura, was coming on a motor cycle when truck No PNT 6352 struck against him at about 6 PM on December 18, 197(sic) . He did not survive the injuries sustained by him in this accident. His wife, children and mother filed an application under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, for award of compensation . The learned Tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 59,00/ -. Out of this amount, the liability of the truck owner was fixed at Rs. 9,000/ and the remaining amount was ordered to be paid by the Insurance Company The owner of the truck and the Insurance Company have come up before me in separate appeals with a common prayer that the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants be suitably reduced
(2.) THE deceased was 32 years old at the time of the accident My learned brother H R Sodhi, J. in Jaswant Ram and Ors. v. Ratti Ram : 1971 A.C.J. 31 held that the life expectancy was 65 years, but in that case the accident took place in 1976 It is a matter of common knowledge that with the passage of time and more easy availability of the health services the life expectancy goes on increasing In December, 1971, I would take it as I 70 years. At the time of accident, the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 366/ - per month In Lachman Singh and Ors. v. Gurmit Kaur and Ors., (1970) 81 P. L. R. 1, a Full Bench of this Court allowed a multiple of 16 of the dependency value of the dependents where the life had been cut short by 37 years I may, however, add that in that case the learned Judges did not perhaps consider the future chances of earning by the deceased as a relevant circumstance In Bishan Devi and Ors. v. Sirbaksh Singh, (1980) 82 P.L.R. 134, while dealing with the case of a Patwari, the Supreme Court observed. The deceased had many more years to go and his contribution to the household which consisted of his wife and four children would have increased " This observation made by the highest Court of land does indicate that potential capacity of a deceased for earning in later life has also to be taken into consideration while fixing the amount of compensation payable to his dependents The deceased was working as an Assistant Manager is a Co -operative Marketing Society at the relevant time The remuneration attached to the managerial posts had been fast increasing in the past and continues to do so The learned Tribunal while fixing the annual dependency value of the claimants did not pay due regard to the evidence of Sukhde v. Chand R W. 5, the Accountant of the said Marketing Union, who stated that apart from the monthly salary which the deceased was drawing he was also entitled to have 20% of the same as bonus This fact shows that apart from his fixed salary the deceased also had some Interest in the shape of bonus in a business, which was the tendency to become more and more lucrative in the limes to come. In the circumstances, I fix the dependency value of the claimants at the rate of Rs. 366/ - P M and do not propose to make a cut of l/3rd amount which is normally done on the basis that the deceased would have spent that amount on himself If the claimants are allowed a multiple of 1 on the basis of this dependency value, the amount award able to them far exceeds the one which his already been awarded to the Respondents. In the circumstances, there appears to be no ground for decreasing the amount of compensation already allowed to the Respondent. There is no force in these appeals which are hereby dismissed.;