( 1 ) THE question which has come up for consideration in short in this appeal under Sec. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (old M. V. Act) challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and ward recorded in Motor accident Claim Petition No. 70 of 1985, decided by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal i (Main), Ahmedabad, which is a part of a composite judgment rendered in MACP no. 12 of 1985 and MACP No. 70 of 1985.

( 2 ) A few material facts giving rise to this appeal may, shortly, be articulated so as to appreciate the merits of the appeal and challenge against it.

( 3 ) A road accident which occurred, on 11-12-1984, at about 10. 30 P. M. took toll of the rider of the scoter, deceased Deepak Hariram. The appellants are the original claimants and respondents are the original opponents of the said claim petition. Two claim petitions came to be filed. Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 70 of 1985 came to be filed by the widow o the deceased for herself and as guardian of minor daughter of the deceased, whereas, MACP No. 12 of 1985 came to be filed by the parents of the deceased. The Tribunal decided both the claim petitions by a common judgment, whereby, the appellants/original opponents came to be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 38. 440. 00 in MACP No. 12 of 1985 and an amount of Rs. 97. 840. 00 in MACP No. 70 of 1985 by way of compensation for the untimely demise of deceased Deepak. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs. 1,36,280 by way of compensation. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award recorded in MACP No. 70 of 1985, whereby, the respondents have been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 97,840. The Tribunal has also directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the application till payment.

( 4 ) THE short question which falls tor our consideration in this appeal, is as to whether the amount of compensation awarded to the appellants who are the widow and minor daughter of deceased Deepak, who also died during the pendency of the appeal, is just and reasonable or not. The contention of the appellants is that the tribunal should have awarded at least an amount of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 more towards the compensation.

( 5 ) NEEDLESS to say that the amount of compensation in a case of tortious liability arising out of a road accident under the Motor Vehicles Act has to be decided in the light of two recognised heads, i. e. , (i) loss of dependency benefits and (ii) loss to the estate and loss of expectation of life, in case of fatal injury like one of hand. The Tribunal has dealt with this aspect in paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 of the impugned composite judgment. The Tribunal found that the income of the deceased at the relevant time would not be, in any case, more than Rs. 1,000. 00. However, the Tribunal has reduced it to Rs. 700. 00 per month on account of imponderables and uncertainties in life. The Tribunal also took the net income of the deceased at Rs. 700. 00 per month and considering nine units in the family, deducted an amount of Rs. 178. 00 towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 522. 00 was accepted as the loss of dependency value per month and the annual loss of dependency, therefore, came to be Rs. 522 x 12 = 6,264/- which came to be mutiplied by 20. Therefore, a total amount of Rs. 1,25,280. 00 under the head of dependency benefit came to be awarded. The conventional amount of Rs. 10,000. 00 came to be awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of expectation of life. The Tribunal observed that this amount should be paid to the widow of the deceased, who is appellant No. 1 herein. An amount o Rs. 1,000. 00 came to be awarded for funeral expenses which has been directed to be paid to the father of the deceased.

( 6 ) IT could very well be seen from the aforesaid facts that the Tribunal, unfortunately, has committed three serious errors : (i) deduction of an amount of Rs. 300. 00 out of the income of Rs. 1,000