T.N. Singh, J.

1. For the death of late Gopal Krishna Sharnia, husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant Nos. 2 to 4, the Claims Tribunal has awarded them Rs. 48,009.97 with costs Rs. 300/- and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum against their claim of Rs. 3,36,970/-. Out of that amount, as per award, the insurer, respondent No. 3, is required to discharge its statutory liability to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-.

2. In this appeal, enhancement is prayed by the claimants/appellants mainly on the ground that 'deductions' made are illegal and unwarranted. On the other hand, it is contended by respondent No. 1 (owner of the offending vehicle) that the entire sum under the award as also enhanced amount, if any, has to be paid by the insurer.

3. The accident took place on 13.5.1977 at around 6.30 p.m. when the deceased was driving a scooter from Gwalior Railway Station towards Morar on public duty and was accompanied by a colleague, Chandrakant (CW 3), occupying the pillion seat. He was a Sub-Engineer in the Public Health Engineering Department of the State Government and was aged 35 years. He was hit by a mini bus, registration No. MPW 8444, owned by respondent No. 1, and he died in the hospital on the same day. The finding of the Tribunal is unassailable that the driver was both rash and negligent. Not only the bus was driven at a high speed and on the wrong side of the road, but also the road was meant for one-way traffic only.

4. In the claim proceedings, evidence was adduced on behalf of the claimants, oral as also documentary. The Claims Tribunal reached the conclusion that the deceased was in good health and he could have retired in normal course at the age of 58 years. He would have earned, between the dates of accident and retirement Rs. 2,21,448.75 including house rent and conveyance allowances and his net earning could be Rs. 2,08,719.25. Out of that l/3rd was allowed for his personal expenses, reaching at the figure of Rs. 1,39,149.17 as loss of dependency of the claimants. From that amount, deduction was made at the rate of 33 1/2 per cent for lump sum payment and for uncertainties of life finding them entitled to Rs. 92,764.12. The claimants had received on different accounts Rs. 20,430/-, and those payments were regarded as permissible deductions. To mention: provident fundRs. 3,962/-; gratuityRs. 3,300/-; ex gratiaRs. 2,500/-; family benefit fundRs. 10,000/-; C.D.S. Rs. 669/- and odds. On account of family pension payable for 23 years at the rate of Rs. 99/- per month, deduction was also held permissible of another sum of Rs. 27,324/-. Accordingly, the net amount payable as compensation by respondents to the claimants was reckoned at Rs. 45,009.97, but another sum of Rs. 3,000/- was awarded for loss of consortium.

5. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants, Mr. Mittal, has cited Manjushri Raha v. B.L. Gupta 1977 ACJ 134 (SC) and he has also assailed the 'deductions' made, relying on this court's Full Bench decision in Kashiram Mathur v. Rajendra Singh 1983 ACJ 152 (MP). Counsel also cited a Five-Judge Bench decision of the Gauhati High Court in Saminder Kaur v. Union of India 1987 ACJ 7 (Gauhati). Other decisions were also cited and those too we shall discuss in due course. In the memo of appeal, the lowest ceiling of the claim is put at Rs. 1,50,000/-. Mr. Mittal's Submission is also that interest less than 12 per cent per annum cannot be awarded under the present law laid down by the Supreme Court.

6. Learned counsel for owner-respondent, Mr. R.D. Jain, has also cited decisions besides challenging the validity of the salary statement, Exh. P-l (proved by CW 1) which admittedly formed the basis of Tribunal's award. Counsel has further Submitted, relying on Sections 147(2) and 217(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short the 'New Act', that the entire liability under the award, including enhancement allowed, is to be discharged by the insurer and the owner has to pay nothing. This content