The amount received under the Family Benefit Scheme and the ex gratia payment cannot be deducted from the amount awarded towards compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, as these amounts are not intended to relieve the tortfeasor of his liability.

SENGOTTUVELAN, J.:- All the abovesaid four appeals arise out of the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, in O.P. No. 275 of 1980 and O.P. No. 318 of 1980.

2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows :

On 10-5-1980, at about 2.30 p.m. the Pallavan Transport Corporation bus bearing registration number M.S.N. 343 while, proceeding from west to east in the Pycrofts Road, and while entering Kamaraj Salai, dashed against the van bearing Registration number T.N.O. 2913, as a result of which, Vijayan, travelling in the van died and the driver of the van Murthy lost his right hand. The said Murthy filed O.P. No. 275 of 1980 claiming a sum of Rs. 70,000/- as compensation for loss of his right hand. Similarly, the legal representatives of the deceased, Vijayan, filed 0.P. No. 318 of 1980, claiming rupees one lakh as compensation for the loss of support on account of the death of Vijayan. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence in the case, came to the conclusion that the collision had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus M.S.N. 343 and on that basis awarded a compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to the driver of the van Murthy in O.P. No. 275 of 1980 and a sum of Rs. 54,000- to the legal representatives of the deceased Vijayan in O.P. No. 318 of 1980. The Pallavan Transport Corporation filed two appeals one in C.M.A. No. 466 of 1982 against the award passed in O.P. No. 275 of 1980 and the other in C.M.A. No.467 of 1982 against the award passed in O. P. No. 318 of 1980. The van driver Murthy, in his turn filed C.M.A. No. 353 of 1983 in respect of the disallowed portion of his claim. The legal representatives of the deceased Vijayan also filed C.M.A. No. 429 of 1986 in respect of the disallowed portion of their claim. In view of the fact that the accident is one and the same, all the above cases are taken up together for consideration.

3. The first question to be considered is whether the accident had occurred as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Pallavan Transport Corporation bus bearing registration number M.S.N. 343. The claimant Murthy, and one Kuppan, a cyclist who happened to follow the van, were examined as P.W. 4 and P.W. 7, respectively to show how the accident had occurred. A plan of the scene of occurrence is also marked as Ex. P. 2. From the evidence of P. W. 4 and P.W. 7 and the plan Ex. p. 2, it is seen that at the time of accident the Pallavan Transport Corporation bus was coming from west to east in the Pycrofts Road and entering the main road Kamaraj Salai to take turn towards North and the collision had taken place in the junction. On a perusal of Ex. P.2, the plan of the scene of occurrence, and the circumstance the van had started from P.W. D. Office nearby, it cannot be said that the van was driven at a high speed or on the wrong side of the road. Further, when the bus entering the main Highway ahead, a duty is cast upon the driver to look into the Highway for any on coming traffic. If that had been done, this accident could have been avoided. According to the evidence of the abovesaid two eye-witnesses as well as the other circumstances of the case, it is clear that the driver of the Pallavan Transport Corporation bus is at fault and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is right in coming to the conclusion that the accident had occurred as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver.

4. The second question that will have to be considered in these appeals relates to the mode of ascertainment of compensation by the Tribunal. In so far as Murthy, the driver of the van T.N.O. 2913 is concerned, the Tribunal had fixed his monthly salary at Rs. 448/-. He is aged 24 years. Even after sustaining the loss of his right hand he continues his employment as a peon in the same department and continues to work and draw salary. He deposed as P.W. 4 that this salary of Rs. 448/- had been red