Deductions cannot be made from compensation awarded to claimants for employment given to deceased's spouse and pensionary benefits received by her. The tractor driver was negligent in parking the vehicle in a dangerous position without proper warning lights or reflectors.

S.S.Sudhalkar, J.

1. This is an appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of the claim granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). Appellants are wife and minor children of deceased Darshan Singh who died in an accident which took place on 1.10.1991 at about 9.30 p.m. on the Patiala-Pehowa Road. The deceased was going on a motor cycle which struck against the stationary tractor trolley, as a result of which he died on the spot.

2. The deceased was earning Rs. 2,564/- as per his salary certificate and this proof of salary was accepted by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal also considered the fact that the deceased was a Constable in Police Department and after his death, appellant No. 1 got a job as Lady Constable. She is getting Rs. 2,100/- per month as salary in addition to the family pension of Rs. 900/- per month. Appellant No. 1 also received Rs. 40,000/- by way of gratuity and Rs. 20,000/- as welfare fund and Rs. 22,000/-/23,000/- was lying to the credit of her husband in the G.P.F. account. The Tribunal of course observed that:

"redeeming feature in this case is that job has been given to Smt. Amarjit Kaur-Claimant No. 1. However, that aspect cannot be taken into consideration while assessing just compensation though job factor cannot be ignored completely."

3. Therefore, the annual dependency of the claimants-appellants was reduced to Rs. 18,000/- and applying a multiplier of 16 years, the figure of Rs. 2,88,800/-was arrived at (the amount should have been Rs. 2,88,000/- as per the calculation). Again, considering the job of appellant No. 1, it was held by the Tribunal that respondents 1 to 4 are liable to pay Rs. 2,25,000/- to the claimants.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The first question that arises for my consideration is whether any amount can be deducted on account of employment given to appellant No. 1 and the pensionary benefits received by her on the death of her husband. The answer thereon has to be in the negative. It is true that appellant No. 1 has been given service on compassionate grounds. However, she has to work during service and earn the money and she cannot be said to be working for the benefit of tort feasors. She would have worked at any other place also or even she could have been working and earning during the life time of her husband. It is not known how her earning would reduce the liability of respondents 1 to 4. When a person earns money, the amount after deducting his own expenses, will have to be broadly divided into two parts (1) the amount that he would spend for the dependents; and (2) the amount which he would save. The amount which has been lost because of the death of the husband of appellant No. 1 is, therefore, loss to dependency and loss to the estate, respectively. If a spouse of a bread earner is also earning then either the bread earner has to spend less for dependency and he can add to his estate or the spouse would save the money and add to her estate. The death of the bread earner caused a loss of dependency and loss to the estate.

5. Regarding pensionary benefits of the deceased also, these were his own earnings and he would have got these benefits on retirement. Regarding family pension also it can be said that tort feasors cannot get benefit of the pensionary benefits. To some extent, the case can be considered with the insurance amount the heirs of the deceased get and it is recognised principle that the premium paid by the deceased cannot be used for the benefit of tort feasors.

6. In view of the above reasons, I hold that the deductions made by the learned Tribunal were not proper.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that amount of Rs. 15,000/- be awarded for loss of consortium and Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses. In cases of death, either an amount is paid for loss of expectation of life which is a non-pecuniary amount or for loss of consortium. The amount sugge