( 1 ) THE first argument is that it was not proved that it was due to the rash and negligent act of the driver that the accident took place. The trial court had noted that Public Witness. 5 who was travelling on pillion of the scooter being driven by the deceased has given evidence that the bus belonging to the appellant came from the opposite side, took a sudden swerve and hit the scooter which resulted in the fatal death and injuries to this witness also. No evidence was led from the appellant s side and therefore the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that it was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus which caused the accident.

( 2 ) THAT next argument was that there was some life insurance amount received by the deceased s wife and, therefore, this amount should be deducted from the compensation awarded. He refers to Jaikumar Chhagan Lal Patni and others v. Mar Jerome D. Souze and another, 1978 ACJ 28 for this proposition. With respect we arc unable to agree. It has been, more or less the consistent practice of the Punjab and Haryana and Delhi High Courts that the deduction on account of insurance received is not to be deducted, as the benefits