JUDGMENT (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J)

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the appeal filed against the award dated 4.2.2003 passed by Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Chandigarh (in short `Tribunal).

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

In an accident which took place on 16.11.1994 at about 10.00 p.m. K.C. Aggarwal (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased) who was sitting directly behind the driver lost his life. Balbir Singh (PW-1) was an eye witness to the accident. At the relevant time, he was standing in front of Mayur Dhaba near which the accident took place. He categorically deposed that the jeep was coming from Bilaspur side and was going towards Sunder Nagar at a very high speed. It was being driven by the driver in the middle of the road. He also stated that a truck was coming from the opposite side at normal speed. When the truck reached near the jeep, the driver of the jeep applied brakes, but because the jeep was being driven at a very high speed, it came to halt in the middle of the road. The back portion of the truck struck against the right side portion of the jeep. Some persons rushed towards the jeep. In the meantime, the truck sped away from the spot. He categorically stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep driver. The deceased left behind a widow and three children.

A claim petition was filed by the widow and the children under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the `Act). The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.8,48,160/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution.

An appeal was filed before the High Court. It was pointed out that on the death of K.C. Aggarwal, respondent No.1- widow had been provided with compassionate appointment and she was getting salary of nearly Rs.4,700/- p.m. (basic pay of nearly Rs.4,700/-) and a residence was provided to her. The High Court did not accept this plea and observed that the quantum of compensation has been rightly fixed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the benefits which claimant has received on account of death of her husband have to be deducted while computing the compensation, if any, payable. With reference to the factual aspects it is submitted that respondent No.1 was getting salary of nearly Rs.4,700/- and therefore she was not entitled to compassionate appointment. It is pointed out that the appeal filed by the claimants is pending adjudication and without considering the relevant factors the High Court has declined to interfere.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the judgment of the High Court is in order.

6. There are several undisputed factors: (i) the husband of respondent No.1 had received fatal injuries in an accident; (ii) the claimants seem to be facing financial problem; (iii) the concept of just compensation cannot be lost sight of. The High Court does not appear to have considered the effect of amount received on account of compassionate appointment.

7. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan and Ors. (2002 (6) SCC 281) it was inter-alia observed as follows:

"24. Mr. Soli J. Sorabji submitted that while assessing the amount of compensation, the benefits which have accrued to the claimants by reason of death must also be taken into account. A kind of balancing of losses and the gains or benefit by reason of death would be necessary. In support of the above contention he has referred to a decision reported in Gobald Motors Service Limited v. R. M. K. Veluswami (1962 (1) SCR 929), and others. It is a decision by a three-Judge Bench of this Court, and at SCR page 938 the observations made by the House of Lords in Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd. (1942 AC page 601) has been quoted which reads as follows : AIR ER p. 658 B) "The general rule which has always prevail