( 1 ) THE question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal would be, while computing the compensation payable to the claimant under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act ), the contractual benefits that accrued to a person on the happening of a particular event i. e. , either retirement or death or in cases of policy after the expiry of period can be deducted on the ground that it amounts to double benefit.

( 2 ) THE factual matrix of the case is that the deceased A. Sudarshan, husband of the first claimant and father of the other claimants, working as a Lineman in a. P. S. E. B. and earning a sum of Rs. 6,300/- as salary per month. On the fateful day i. e. , on 25-6-1996, while he was going from his office on a scooter towards Lingampally near Aluminium Industries, a lorry bearing no. TSL1668 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooterist. As a result of this accident, he received grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries while he was being taken to the hospital.

( 3 ) THE claimants filed O. P. No. 785 of 1998 on the file of Chairman, Motor accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional district Judge, Ranga Reddy District at l. B. Nagar, Hyderabad, claiming a compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- stating all the facts. They also stated that at the time of death, the deceased was aged 45 years. The respondents resisted the claim saying that the accident has occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, but not because of the rash and negligent driving of the said lorry by its driver. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: (i) Whether the death of the deceased was due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing no. A. P. 28tc 7206 by its driver ? (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so to what amounts? (iii) To what relief ?

( 4 ) TO prove their case, Claimant No. 1 was examined as P. W. I and G. Prabhu lingam was examined as P. W. 2, who is said to be the direct witness to the accident and Ex. A-1 to Ex. A-7 were marked i. e. , ex. A-1 is the certified copy of F. I. R. , Ex. A-2 is the certified copy of panchnama, Ex. A-3 is the certified copy of inquest report, ex. A-4 is the certified copy of Post-Mortem report, Ex. A-5 is the certified copy of M. V. I. Report, Ex. A-6 is the certified copy of charge-sheet, and Ex. A-7 is the salary certificate.

( 5 ) ON behalf of the respondents, no one was examined.

( 6 ) THE Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver.

( 7 ) COMING to the benefit of compensation to be awarded, Ex. P-7 is the salary certificate. It is useful to extract the contents of Ex. A7-salary certificate: central Power Distribution Company of A. P. Limited Salary Certificate of Sri A. Sudershan, Lineman, for the Month of may, 1996.

( 8 ) FROM the said salary certificate, it is seen that the deceased person was receiving a gross salary of Rs. 6,330/- per month and a sum of Rs. 1,512/- is being deducted under various heads. This aspect will be dealt with, while dealing with the merits of the case. The learned Judge has taken the net monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- after deducting Rs. 2,000/-per month for his personal expenses, and the estimated loss of dependency at Rs. 3,000/- per month. Though the claimants claimed that the age of deceased is 45 years, the tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at 50 years on the basis of the age mentioned in the post-mortem certificate. Basing on bhagawan Das v. Mohd. Arif, 1987 (2) alt 137, case, the learned Chairman of motor Accident Claims Tribunal applied the multiplier 8 and fixed the total contribution (loss of dependency) at Rs. 2,88,000/ -. The learned Chairman has given Rs. 15,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages and another sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the first claimant towards loss of consortium. In all, the