( 1 ) SINCE both the appeals have arisen from the same award and the point involved are common, hence these appeals are taken up together and disposed by this order. In FAO No. 231/83 appeal is preferred against the award of the Tribunal by the claimants and in FAO No. 274/83 award has been challenged by the owner of the vehicle which according to claimants caused the accident.

( 2 ) IN FAO No. 231/83 appellants Lado Devi and Others i. e. LRs. of deceased have assailed the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) on the grounds namely that (1) Dependency loss as assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side; (2) That 20% deduction on account of lump sum payment is against law; (3) Interest ought to have been awarded from the date of the institution of the claim petition; and finally (4) the Insurance Company s liability was unlimited, whereas the Tribunal limited it to Rs. 50,000. 00. And in the FAO. No. 274/83 the owner of the offending vehicle has challenged the award primarily on the ground that his vehicle was not involved in the accident nor its driver was negligent. That compensation awarded is on higher side.

( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the challenge in FAO. 231/83, brief facts of the case are that on 13th June,1979 at about 10. 30 p. m. deceased Ram Chander Sharma aged about 42 years was going as pillion rider on a two wheeler Scooter, when a oil tanker bearing No. DLG-6267 driven rashly and negligently at a fast speed hit the scooter from behind. Because of this impact, the deceased Ram Chander fell down. He sustained injuries. He was taken to Bara Hindu Rao Hospital where he was declared brought dead. Deceased during his life time was doing a partnership business wherefrom his monthly income was Rs. 1,000. 00. Legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs under the Motor Vehicles Act (in short the Act ). The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,92,000. 00 out of which allowed deduction of 20% on account of lump sum payment and uncertainties of life. Thus the net compensation payable to the claimants was assessed at Rs. 1,53,600. 00.

( 4 ) IN order to dispose the questions raised in both the appeals, it must be stated at the outset that question of deductions at 20% on account of lump sum payment and uncertainties of life is bad in law. Such a point came up before this Court as well as the Apex Court. The Courts by authoritative pronouncement held that such deduction on account of lump sum payment is not permissible. For support reference can be made to the following decisions; Hardeo Kaur and Ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. [1992 0 ACJ 300], Rukmani Devi and Ors. V. Om Prakash and Ors. [1991 0 ACJ 3], General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas and Ors. [1994 0 ACJ 1], Dharam Singh and Anr. Vs. Parveen Sehgal and Ors. [1992 0 ACJ 1067] and Chameli Wati and Anr. V. Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors. [1984 0 ACJ 134]. The Apex Court in the case of Hardeo Kaur and Ors. (Supra) observed that with the value of rupee dwindling due to high rate of inflation, there is no justification for making deductions on account of lump sum payment. Similar view was expressed by this Court in this Court in Chameli Wati and Ors. (Supra) when it said that no deduction on such account is called for and that by permitting this deduction for the benefit of the respondent who had been found negligent and responsible for causing death would be in fact to reward him for his negligence. In view of the law discussed above, the deduction at the rate of 20% ordered by the Tribunal on account of lump sum payment and uncertainties of life cannot be sustained.

( 5 ) SO far as the question raised in appeal No. 231/83 regarding non-granting of interest from the date of petition, I find substance in the contention of Mr. O. P. Goyal counsel for the appellant. The award of interest to the compensation is by judic