( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants against an award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandleshwar, in Motor Accident Claims Case no. 51/70 dated 14-6-1976.

( 2 ) THE learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- so far as the widow and children of the deceased are concerned, Rs. 3,000/- to the Mother and Rs. 2,400/- to the father by the impugned order. The learned Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of Rs. 4/-per cent per annum only from the date of award up to the date of realisation.

( 3 ) THE deceased was an Assistant Surgeon in the employment of the Madhya Pradesh Government. At the time of his death, he was posted at Raipur Hospital. The jeep in question belonged to respondent No. 1, the State and was insured with Respondent No. 3. This vehicle was provided for touring duties which the deceased was to perform. The Respondent No. 2 is the driver of the vehicle. On 17-8-1970, the deceased was on tour to Ozar in the said jeep which met with an accident resulting in injuries to the deceased who ultimately died as a result of these injuries. The claim petition was submitted by appellants Nos. 1 to 7, as No. 1 is the widow and Nos. 2 to 5 are minor daughters and appellants Nos. 6 and 7 are parents of the deceased. ( 4 ) THE appellants contended before the Tribunal that at the time of the accident the jeep was being driven in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which it suddenly over-turned on way and caught fire causing injuries to the deceased who later died in consequence of the injuries. The salary of the deceased was Rs. 630/- per month including the allowances and he had a private practice of about Rs. 350/- per month and was of about 35 years of age at the time of his death. The claimants, therefore, claimed Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation.

( 5 ) THE Respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal pleaded that the deceased himself was driving the jeep in question at the time of accident which occurred due to his own negligence and rashness. The Respondent No. 3 adopted the written statement of Respondent No, 1 and further contended that as deceased was a passenger or an unauthorised occupant in the vehicle, the policy did not cover the risk of such a person. The respondent No. 2 the driver of the vehicle, in his written statement admitted that he was driving the jeep at the time of accident which slipped on account of mud on the side of the road due to rains and, therefore, over-turned, as the vehicle, lost the balance and finally caught fire, ultimately resulting in death of the deceased. It was also admitted by him in a separate written statement that the balance was lost because the jeep was at a high speed at that time.

( 6 ) AFTER trial, the learned court below came to the conclusion that the vehicle was being driven by the driver and was being driven rashly and negligently and before us, in this appeal, this finding arrived at by the learned court below has not been challenged by any one of the parties.

( 7 ) THE appeal has only been preferred by the claimants. The respondents have not preferred any appeal nor they have preferred any cross-objections and the main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is with regard to the quantum. According to the learned counsel, the salary of the deceased is not in dispute but the learned Tribunal while assessing the compensation deducted the amount which was deposited towards G. P. F. It was also contended that in arriving at the figure of Rs. 300/- which according to the learned Tribunal, the widow and the children were getting from the deceased, the court below committed an error in deducting what he was paying to his brother and other members of the family. It was also contended that the learned Tribunal did not take into consideration the income from private practice which the deceased was earning. According to the learned counsel, the learned Judge accepted, in view of the evidence in the case, th