The appointment on compassionate grounds is not a relevant factor in determining the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, as it does not constitute a pecuniary advantage resulting from the accidental death.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment and award dated 28th April, 2000 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 4th Court, Alipore in M. A. C. No. 357 of 1997 under section 163a of the Motor Vehicles Act, whereby and whereunder a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was awarded for death of Gopal Chandra Hansda which took place on 3. 8. 97.

( 2 ) THE question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether only because the appellant No. 1 has got service on compassionate ground in place of her deceased husband, the learned Tribunal was correct in awarding a lump sum amount of compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- or not.

( 3 ) MR. Banik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has placed strong reliance upon a decision of the apex Court in Helan C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another reported in (1999) 1 SCC 90 = 1999 ACJ 383 and submitted that the learned Tribunal is wrong in taking the factum of appointment on compassionate ground as relevant factor for the purpose of determination of amount of compensation. Strong reliance in this connection, has also been placed upon the following decisions:-

( 4 ) SM. Sunder and Ors. v. Hem Singh and Ors. , reported in 1993 (2) AJR 173, A. Asraf v. Shaik Madar Sab and Ors. reported in 1993 (I) ACC 693, M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Anantha Lakshmi, reported in 1995 (I) TAC 602, Geetha Kumari and Ors. v. Rubber Board and Ors. reported in 1994 ACJ 796, Khashti Devi v. Amar Nath and Ors. reported in 1994 ACJ 873, Sukhi and Ors. v. Hem Singh and Ors. reported in 1994 ACJ 1024, Charu Barman and Ors. v. Satya Narayan Jiwan Ram and Ors. reported in 1998 (2) TAC 505 as also a decision of Karnataka High Court in Lalitha and Anr. v. Dashanbhat Harbansh Bhat and Anr. reported in 2000 ACJ 200.

( 5 ) ACCORDINE to the learned counsel the learned Tribunal ought to have computed the amount of compensation in the following manner :

The Victim's salary was @ Rs. 6,649. 75p. per month X 12   79,797. 00 The victim's age is 45 years and the

age of the petitioner No. 1 is 39 yrs.

Multipier would be 17 (79,797 X 17)

13,56,549. 00

Deduction of 1/3rd of Rs. 13,56,549/- is 4,52,183. 00 9,04,366. 00

Funeral expenses

2,000. 00  

Loss of consortium

5,000. 00  

Loss of Estate

2,500. 00  

5,000. 00 14,500. 00

9,18,866. 00 @ 12% interest from 4. 12. 97 (2 & ? gears) 2,75,659. 80  

Total Compensation ?   11,94,525. 80

Pain and Suffering

( 6 ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-insurance company, on the other hand submitted that amount of salary which have become payable by reason of appointment on compassionate ground is a relevant factor and the same should be taken into consideration for the purpose of determination of the total amount of compensation.

( 7 ) THE question raised in this appeal in our considered opinion is no longer res integra.

( 8 ) WHAT would be pecuniary advantage gained by way of an accidental death came up for consideration before the apex Court in Helen C. Rebello and Ors. v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in (1999)1 SCC 90. The apex Court upon considering various decisions as also the general principles of compensation in torts and further upon considering as what would be the just compensation as has been provided for under section 110b of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which is parimateria with section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998, held, :-"so far as the general principle of estimating damages under the common law is concerned, the pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing on one hand, the loss to the claimant of the future pecuniary benefits that would have accused to him but for the death with the "pecuniary advantage" which from whatever source comes to him by reason of the death. In other words, it is the balancing of loss and gain of the claimant occasioned by the death. But th