BALI, J. - (1.) ORIENTAL Insurance Co. Ltd. the appellant herein aggrieved of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 8. 1. 1998 in S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 618/91, has filed the present appeal with an obvious prayer to set aside the said order.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, in so far as the same are relevant for the only contention raised on behalf of the appellant, reveal that Smt. Leelavati and her two major sons Hari Shanker and Ganpat Sharma claimed compensation on account of death of Ramgopal, their husband and father respectively, who died in an accident. Learned Tribunal determined the age of the deceased as 55 years at the time of accident and according to Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, applied multiplier of `5'. The Tribunal held that the income of the deceased was Rs. 2290/- per month and he was getting bonus also of Rs. 2906/-, his total income being Rs. 30,794/ -. The claimants were awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,500/ -. Aggrieved, they filed appeal which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment. The appeal preferred by the claimants was partly allowed and they were held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,71,352/ -. Learned Single Judge taking into consideration future prospects and increase in income of the deceased, held that higher gross in come was required to be estimated. For his aforesaid finding learned Single Judge relied upon a decision of the Supreme court in G. M. K. S. R. T. C. vs. S. Susamma Thomas (1994 ACJ 1 (SC)) and the amount representing 50% was added to the existing amount for calculating the estimated gross income of the deceased. The gross income of the deceased was thus calculated at Rs. 46,191/- per annum and taking 1/3rd on account of personal expenses of the deceased, dependency was worked out at Rs. 30,794/- per annum. Applying multiplier of `8', compensation was assessed at Rs. 2,46,352/ -. An amount of Rs. 15,000/- was added as compensation for the loss of love and consortium to the wife, and a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- was added for the loss of fatherly affection, to the two children of the deceased. The only contention that has been raised on behalf of the appellant is that once the deceased was 55 or 56 years of age, there was no scope then to hold that he would have future prospects for earning more and that being so, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there was no justification for adding 50% of the income earned by the deceased to work out his gross income. In the first blush, the contention raised by the learned counsel appears to be attractive but when examined in the context of facts of the present case and attending circumstances, the same would have no substance whatsoever. Bal Kishan (AW-4) who was working in the office where deceased Ramgopal was employed, stated that Ramgopal was holding the post of Chief Setter. The job entrusted to him was development of machines by grinding and that it was a technical job. From the statement made by bal Kishan it thus transpires that Ramgopal was having technical qualification and was doing technical job. There was a time, may be a decade or two decades ago, when a person at the age of 55-56 years was not supposed to live for long years but span of life has, due to various factors which need not be discussed, has increased. People do not get old enough so as not able to take up any job even after their retirement. It is well-known that army officers, who retire rather too early, do take up managerial posts after retirement. Similarly, technically qualified persons are reemployed even after their retirement. Doctors, Architects and lawyers who may take up some assignment do get themselves engaged in their respective fields and some times earn far more than what they might have been earning while doing service. Ramgopal, as mentioned above, was holding a technical post. Even though he might be retiring within a couple of years, when he died he had no ailment and at the time of retirement as well was well within a position to take up reemployment or even do private job. In either event, he would have earned and it is possible that he might have earned for more than what was his pay when he was employed with the National Engineering Industries. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Ramgopal would have no future prospects of earning in view of the fact that Ram Gopal was holding a technical qualification and was doing technical job and had every chance to be reemployed or to do private job, has to be repelled. No merits. Dismissed. _ .;