JUDGMENT

R D Dhanuka, J. - By this First Appeal filed under section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, the appellants (original claimants) have impugned the judgment and award dated 5th April, 2004 partly rejecting the claims made by the appellants. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this First Appeal are as under :

2. The appellant no.1 is the widow, the appellant no.2 is the daughter, the appellant nos.3-A and 3-B are legal heirs of the original appellant no.3, who was father of the deceased Milind Dinkar Kulkarni. The appellant no.4 is brother of the said Milind Dinkar Kulkarni. It was the case of the appellants herein (original claimants) that Milind Dinkar Kulkarni along with the appellant nos.1, 2, original appellant no.3 and the appellant no.4 left Kolhapur were going towards Pune by Car registration No.MH 9 E- 1265. The said Car was being driven by the said Milind Dinkar Kulkarni and was also owned by him. He was driving the said Car by left side of the road at moderate speed after observing rules and regulations of traffic on the road. When the said Car reached near the spot of accident, one Tanker bearing registration No.19 A 6565 came by opposite side in very fast speed.

3. The driver of the said Tanker was driving the said Tanker in rash and negligent manner without observing the rules and regulations of traffic on the road and could not control the said Tanker and came on the wrong side of the road and dashed the said Car driven by Milind Dinkar Kulkarni. The said Milind Dinkar Kulkarni and daughter Ketki Milind Kulkarni were seriously injured. The driver of the offending vehicle was charge-sheeted by the concerned police station. The said Milind Dinkar Kulkarni (hereinafter referred to as "the said deceased") sustained serious injuries in the said accident and subsequently died at Krishna Hospital, Karad where he was admitted for treatment.

4. It was the case of the appellants that the said deceased was a Chartered Accountant by profession and was practicing at Karad and Mumbai. He was very intelligent and clever and had good practice. He was earning Rs.40,000/- to Rs.45,000/- per month and was the sole earning member in the family. All the appellants were totally dependent upon his income. The said deceased used to give Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- to the appellant no.1 for managing the household expenses as well as personal expenses of the appellants. The appellant no.1 and the original appellant no.3 were provided with separate Cars for their personal use and enjoyment. The said deceased had allowed them to spend for the maintenance of the said cars out of the funds which he used to give to the appellant no.1.

5. It was the case of the appellants that the appellant no.1 was also managing the properties at Kolhapur and Pune out of the funds provided to her by the deceased for the household expenses. The servants were engaged for the household work. Their salaries used to be paid from the funds which the said deceased used to give for the salary and expenses. The original appellant no.3 and the appellant no.4 were aged and were not keeping good health. The said deceased used to look after the aged parents also. The appellant no.3 were subsequently expired.

6. The said deceased used to bear the expenses of the education of the appellant no.2. The said deceased used to invest his balance income in various shares and other investments with an intention to have the source of income in the old age of the appellant and for hi