Benefits received by legal representatives of a deceased employee, such as salary, pension, insurance money, gratuity, provident fund, or any gratuitous payment, cannot be deducted from the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act.

John Mathew, J.

Whether the salary of a dependant who was given employment on compassionate grounds on the death of a person who was injured in a motor accident is to be deducted from the compensation payable on account of his death? The learned Tribunal deducted a portion of the amount from the total amount of compensation. In this appeal by the petitioners before the M.A.C.T., they arc mainly challenging the direction to deduct a portion of the salary that the 1st petitioner widow may receive throughout her career.

2. The 1st petitioner before the Tribunal is the widow and petitioners 2 and 3 are the minor children of deceased V.R. Aravindakshan Nair, who died in a motor accident. Subsequently additional petitioners 4 and 5 who are the father and mother of the deceased were also impleaded. While the deceased was travelling in a jeep KLK 7675 belonging to his employer (Rubber Board, Kottayam) in connection with his official duty, it met with a n accident. According to the petitioners, the jeep was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the 3rd respondent. The vehicle was not road worthy. The accident took place due to this reason as well as to the rash and negligent driving ot" the vehicle. In the accident the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries within four hours of the accident. The deceased who was aged 29 years, was employed as Research Assistant in the Pathology division of the Rubber Board (1st respondent) on a monthly salary of Rs. 1171 Ps 90. But for his death he could have continued in service up to the age of 58. He was a Post Graduate in Agriculture. He would have got promotion to the post of Director. Even after retirement lie could have worked and earned. At the time of his death he had put in three years of service. The pay scale of Research Assistant was revised with effect from 1-1-1986. On completion of 10 years of service normally a Research Assistant would gel promotion to the higher grade. His total emoluments by. the time he retired from service would have been Rs. 13.09 lakhs. However, the petitioners claimed only Rs. 6 lakhs as compensation after giving allowance for the imponderables as well as the amounts that the deceased would have spent upon himself.

3. The 1st respondent contended that the accident happened solely due to the breaking of the propeller shaft, as a result of which the jeep overturned to the right side. on which side the deceased was sitting. It was contended that on the dale of accident the jeep was in perfect running condition and there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the 3rd respondent driver. It was also contended that the compensation claimed was highly excessive. Promotions to higher posts such as Deputy Director and Director are made by direct recruitment based on the prescribed qualifications. The deceased was not entitled to promotion to those posts merely by virtue of the number of years of service. The deceased did not have a doctorate in the specified branch. It was further contended that the 1st petitioner win) is the widow of the deceased was given a posting in the Rubber Board on compassionate grounds as L.D. Clerk in the grade of Rs. 260-400. Therefore, in case the Rubber Board was liable to pay compensation the fact that the 1st petitioner has been provided wilh a job, is to be taken into consideration in fixing the amount of compensation. The 1st respondent filed an additional written statement contending that in any view of the case the salary of the deceased at the lime of the accident alone could be taken in to consideration Respondents 2 and 3 also filed separate written statements.

4. The petitioners produced Exts.A1 to A6. The 1st petitioner was examined as P.W.I. The respondents produced Exts. B1 to B9 and examined three witnesses as R.Ws.1 to 3.

5. The points that arise for consideration are: (i) Whether any part of the salary that may be received by the 1st petitioner should be deducted from the total