BHAWANI SINGH, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award passed by the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shahdol, in Claim Case No. 30 of 1992, dated 12. 12. 1997.

( 2 ) VINOD Kumar Dwivedi was Sub Auditor, panchayat Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh. On 10. 1. 1991 at about 12. 30 p. m. he had gone to Anuppur and kotma with his colleagues by jeep No. CPZ 2951. This jeep was of Forest Department driven by Sunderlal and purpose of visit was election duty. When they reached a place between Anuppur and Chachai, it fell into the river. This happened because driver was driving it rashly and negligently. As a result, deceased suffered serious injuries and died in the District Hospital, shahdol, on 11. 1. 1991. At the time of accident he was receiving salary of Rs. 1,958 per month. He was 33 years old at that time. He left behind his wife, Laxmi Devi dwivedi (30), daughters Anju (9), Neelu (7), Renuka (5), Rashmi (3) and Ruchi (5 months ). On account of this death, the family has been left high and dry since it was entirely depending on the deceased. Compensation of Rs. 11,67,000 has been claimed.

( 3 ) RESPONDENTS have denied that the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. Claim is exaggerated. The driver was compelled to drive the vehicle with three occupants during night. The claimant has been appointed on compassionate grounds, therefore, claim is liable to be dismissed.

( 4 ) CLAIMS Tribunal has held that the accident took place as alleged in which deceased died and that the claimants were entitled to maintain the petition. Ultimately, compensation of Rs. 65,000 has been awarded with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum with costs of Rs. 500. The claims Tribunal awarded this compensation holding that the wife was receiving pension and had been appointed on compassionate ground, therefore, she was not entitled to compensation.

( 5 ) MR. N. K. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Claims Tribunal has committed a serious error while assessing the income of the deceased, therefore, just compensation has not been awarded. There could be no reduction on account of pension and compassionate appointment. Reliance is placed on Division Bench decision of this court in Dayawati Bai v. Devendra Singh, 2000 (1) MPHT 1 (NOC), which after taking into consideration some decisions of this court, holds that in view of consistent view of the court, family pension payable to the widow of deceased is not to be deducted from the amount of compensation awarded.

( 6 ) THE finding of the Claims Tribunal with regard to accident being result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle is sustainable on the evidence in the case. The dispute relates to assessment of compensation. On the date of accident deceased was receiving salary of Rs. 1,958 per month. After making deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenditure monthly dependency comes to Rs. 1,306, yearly Rs. 15,672. At the time of accident, deceased was 33 years old. By application of multiplier of 17, the compensation works out to Rs. 2,66,424.

( 7 ) THE contention of Mr. P. D. Gupta, deputy Advocate General, that since wife of deceased has been appointed on compassionate ground, compensation to the extent of salary being received by appellant should be deducted. We do not accept this contention. Compensation is awarded on account of the death of the deceased who happens to be her husband. It is arrived at on the basis of certain principles, while appointment on compassionate ground is, by way of compassion, shown by the employer due to the death of its employee during employment and governed by executive orders/instructions. Under Motor vehicles Act wife is one of the legal heirs of the deceased, therefore, entitled to maintain petition for compensation. A Division bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court has taken a similar view in Andhra Pradesh state Road Trans. Corpn. v. G. Jana Bai, 2002 ACJ 502 (AP ). Therefore, the content

Click Here to Read the rest of this document