The pecuniary advantage gained by the claimant as a result of the 'accidental death' should be deducted from the total compensation payable to the claimant.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. Both these appeals have arisen out of the award, dated 22.6.2005, passed, in MAC Case No. 194/2003 and MAC Case No. 195/2003, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dimapur, Nagaland, whereby diverse sums of money have been granted, in favour of the claimant-respondents, as compensation.

2. As both these appeals have arisen out of the common award aforementioned and as, on the request made by the learned Counsel for the parties, both these appeals have been heard together, we dispose of these appeals by this common judgment and order.

3. The material facts and various stages leading to the present appeals, may, in brief, be set out as follows:

(i) Two claim applications under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, 'the M.V. Act, 1988'), were made by the persons, who had claimed themselves to be the legal representatives and dependents of two constables, namely, Constable No. 61919, late Saingam Kuki and Constable No. 62441, late Tangsai Khiamungan. The claim application, which gave rise to MAC Case No. 194/03, having been made by a person who described himself as the father of deceased, Saingam Kuki and the other claim application, which gave rise to MAC Case No. 195/2003, having been filed by two persons, who described themselves as widow and brother of the deceased constable, late Tangsai Khiamungan, the cases of the claimants in both the claim cases were identical and may, in brief, be described thus: On 4.3.1994, the constables, namely, Constable No. 61919, late Saingam Kuki and Constable No. 62441, late Tangsai Khiamungan, both of whom were working in the 6th Nagaland Armed Police Battalion, with its Headquarter at Tizit, in the District of Mon, Nagaland, were travelling, on duty, in Government vehicle No. NLP 1493, for transportation of firewood from their place of posting at Tizit, to their new destination, at Dimapur. When the two constables aforementioned were travelling, as indicated hereinbefore, the vehicle met with an accident near Hatikhuli, under Gaurisagar Police Station, following bursting of one of the front tyres of the said vehicle due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle by its driver. In the accident, which so occurred, both the constables died at the spot. While in the MAC Case No. 194/2003, which was instituted by the father of the deceased constable, late Saingam Kuki, a sum of Rs. 6,40,000 was claimed as compensation, the MAC Case No. 195/2003, which was instituted by widow and brother of the constable, Tangsai Khiamungan, a sum of Rs. 6,00,000 was sought for as compensation.

(ii) The appellants herein, as owners and persons responsible for making payment of the compensation, filed their written statement, wherein it was not denied by the present owner-appellants that the said two constables were travelling in the vehicle aforementioned in discharge of their official duties. What was, however, agitated, on behalf of the owner-appellants, is that the said two constables were not bona fide passengers, though it was, at the same time, admitted by the appellants herein, as owners and persons responsible for making payment of compensation, that the two constables aforementioned were travelling in their departmental vehicle at the relevant time of accident, on official duty, as the 6th Nagaland Armed Police Battalion was, in the process of shifting, at the Government expenses, from Tizit to Dimapur. Another reason for resisting the claim for compensation was that as per the Government policy, the constables were, at best, entitled to receive Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 5 lakh as ex gratia payment from the Government depending upon their ranks in the service. Yet another reason for resisting the claim for compensation was that since the two constables had died, while performing their official duties, they were not entitled to receive any compensation under the provisions of the M.V. Act, 1988.

(iii) The learned Trial Court framed five issues in the claim