V.V. Vaze, J.
1. Smt. Muradevi Kalgonda Patil along with her sons filed a claim petition before the Ex-Officio Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Kolhapur, at Kolhapur, as her son Anil, a commerce Graduate and a probationary officer in the New India Assurance Company Limited, Sangli, was killed, while riding his motor-cycle from Jaisingpur to Sangli by a truck driven by Laxman Saidapur--opponent No. 1, which was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The learned Member of the Tribunal, after applying the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitor, found the truck driver guilty of negligence but awarded only Rs. 12,000/- as damages to Applicant Muradevi, the widowed mother of the deceased, which gives rise to this appeal.
2. The deceased Anil was engaged as a probation inspector for the first year when he was getting an honorarium of Rs. 500/- per month. Upon successful completion of the probation, he would have been appointed as an Officer in the scale of Rs. 250-850. Upon such appointment, Anil would have been entitled to dearness allowance, house rent allowance, city compensatory allowance, travelling allowance, provident fund etc. The family of the applicants owns a plot of land at Jaisingpur where she resides and some portion of the Jaisingpur house is let out to tenants. The family also owns land at Dudhgaon where tobacco and jwar is grown. Muradevi had 5 sons and upon the death of Anil, she has succeeded to his share under the Hindu Succession Act.
3. At the outset we would make it clear that even though the share of Anil has devolved upon Muradevi as a result of the death of Anil, we would not consider it as any advantage arising out of the death of Anil because unlike an insurance policy becoming payable at an early date on the death of the insured it is not an accretion to the estate. This proposition is not very much in dispute, and if any authority is needed for it, it can be found in Assam State Transport Corporation v. Mahadevi Nayak and Ors. 1982 A.C.J. 83 where even though the deceased had left 60 Bighas of agricultural land, the value of the land or the income thereof was not deducted from the amount of compensation.
4. Coming now to the question of damages, we find that Anil, in the first year of his service as probationary inspector, could not have contributed more than Rs. 200/- per month towards to family expenses because his monthly emoluments were only Rs. 500/- which in a year totals up to Rs. 2,400/-. In the next four years when Anil would have been appointed as an officer, it is reasonable to suppose that his contribution would have risen to Rs. 300/- per month for the four years to talling to Rs. 14,400/-. For the remaining 10 years, we would reduce the contribution from Rs. 300/-to Rs. 200/- because in the nature of things Anil would nave got married and raised a family. That brings us a total of Rs. 24,000/- for the remaining 10 years and an aggregate of Rs. 40,000/- for a period of 15 years. We have chosen 15 years as the multiplier because though Anil was young, the entire earning in his life span could not have accrued to the benefit of his mother who was past 50 years at the time of the accident. From the aggregate of Rs. 40,800/- we would deduct Rs. 9,000/- which Muradevi has received as Insurance amount which brings us to the figure of Rs. 31,800/-.
5. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the Opponents Nos. 1 to 3 shall pay an amount of Rs. 19,800/- and legal costs of Rs. 1,700/- totalling to Rs. 21,500/- to the Appellants by 1st January 1985 The amount is directed to be deposited in the Tribunal. Should the Opponents fail to make the aforesaid deposit before the aforesaid date, the said sum of Rs. 19,800/- shall carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 1st January 1985 till the date of realisation. Since the applicants have already reduced the claim before the hearing, refund of court fees as per Rules on Rs. 75,000/-.