R.C. Lahoti, J.

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 be earning anything. In appeal, this much is only under challenge.

It has been found proved by the Tribunal that on 4-8-1975 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 based on evidence and no other inference could possibly have been drawn.

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 earning by way of tuition-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 tuition-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.

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 deceasea was certainly not a beggar 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, they 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 Sadaqat Hussain was serving as a teacher in primary school.

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 of compensation payable in a claim case, by resorting to a cut-short method. What was paid to a school teacher in the year 1978 is a matter of common knowledge and with a little effort at search, the Tribunal could have determined the earning of the deceased. A reference to Shiksha Sahinta (Education Manual), (1974 Edition, published by Government Central Press, Bhopal, under the authority of the State Government) shows that since 1973 the pay-scale of a primary school teacher as fixed by the M. P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1973 was 169-300. An extract from compilation of Orders relating to M. P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1983 and Ready Reckoner published by Government Central Press, Bhopal, in 1983, under the authority of the Government of M. P. Finance Department, shows the emoluments payable in the scale of 169-300 at the base, as under : -

D. A. as on 1-1-1970 Rs. 43.00

A. D. A. as on 1-8-1970 Rs. 8.00

A. D. A. from 1-2-1977 Rs. 79.20

Ad hoc A.D.A. from 1-9-1981 Rs. 135.30

Total allowances as on 1-9-1989 Rs. 265.50

All the three claimants deposed that the deceased was earning Rs. 300/- by way of salary. The above made reference to Government publications positively indicates that the witnesses were not telling a lie and the deceased was certainly earning around Rs. 300/-. The life expectancy of the deceased who was school teacher, can safely be taken to be 65 in the absence of any other evidence enabling stretch in life expectancy beyond that. Assuming that the deceased was spending l/3rd on his own, the dependency of the claimants could safely have been fixed at Rs. 200/- per month i.e. Rs. 2,400/- per annum. The deceased having died at the age of 40 and fixing the life expectancy at 65, the loss suffered by the claimants comes to Rs. 60,000/-. In our opinion, this would be a reasonable figure to be fixed as quantum of compensation. We are accepting this figure because we have kept in view the considerations that the widow-mother was 56 years of age on the date of claim, the brother was 18 years of age who would certainly start earning for himself after a few. years, and the unmarried sister would shortly have been married, involving financial obligation to the deceased in arranging for the marriage and at the same time relieving him of her dependency thereafter. We have also kept in view that the award of compensation ought not to be a luxury but at the same time the loss of human life has to be valued though of course by a guess work to some extent.

We do not propose to make any deduction on account of lumpsum payment because the value of money is falling day by day. At one time it was conventional to make deduction at a certain percentage varyingly adopted by different High Courts for lump sum payment. The recent trend is to set off the falling value of money on account of phenomenon of inflation as against the claim for deduction on account of lump sum payment. This is the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in. Lachhiyabai v. Darshansingh, : 1988 JLJ 469 holding that there is no inexorable rule of law contemplating such deductions. (See also Union of India v. Yashwant Singh : 1987 ACJ 437 ). Judicial notice of loss of purchasing power of rupee to a considerable extent can be taken as held by the Apex Court in Bharat Petroleum Management Staff Pensioners v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., : AIR 1988 SC 1407 .

With the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Narcinva V. Kamat and anr. v. Alfredo Antonio Deo Martins : 1985 ACJ 397 and Chameli Wati and Anr. v. Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors. : 1985 ACJ 645 the rate of interest to be allowed on the awarded amount has to be 12 per cent. Since then this Court has invariably followed the law and allowed interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. (See, State of M. P. v. Shantibai 1986 I MPWN 54 and New India Assurance Co. and Ors. v. Smt. Shakuntala Bai : 1987 MPLJ 719 :: 1987 JLJ 462 ). The view stands reinforced with the latest pronouncement of the Apex Court in Jagbir Singh and Ors. v. General Manager, Punjab Roadways : 1987 ACJ 15.

The result is that the appeal is allowed. The Madhya Pradesh State "Road Transport Corporation shall pay an amount of Rs. 60.000/- with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of application (i.e. 3-2-1976) till the date of realisation with costs to the appellants, quantified at Rs. 1,000/- for both the Courts.