RAMANA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of the order and decree in O. P. No. 628 of 1994 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Hyderabad.

( 2 ) ON 13. 7. 1994 at about 7. 30 p. m. one S. Mallikharjun, who was working as a junior Assistant in the Office of SETWIN, Puranahaveli, Hyderabad, was proceeding on his Luna bearing No. AP 12-2376 towards Mushirabad (Secunderabad) side from R. T. C. Cross side. When he reached near the Subash Talkies at Mushirabad, an Allwyn Nissan van bearing No. AIS 8015 belonging to the Telecommunications Department and being driven by its driver/respondent No. 3 in the O. P. in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed came from the same direction (Mushirabad side) and dashed the Luna of Mallikharjun. As a result of the said accident, Mallikharjun sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Wife, children and parents of the deceased Mallikharjun filed the O. P. under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the O. P. Respondent No. 1 in the O. P. is Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Telecommunications, New Delhi and the respondent No. 2 in the O. P. is the Chief general Manager, Telecommunications department, Hyderabad. The respondent no. 3 in the O. P. is the driver working in the Telecommunications Department, who drove the Allwyn Nissan van at the time of the accident.

( 3 ) BEFORE the Tribunal the respondent no. 2 in the O. P. filed counter on behalf of all the respondents denying rash and negligent driving of Allwyn Nissan van by the respondent No. 3.

( 4 ) BASED on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Allwyn Nissan van No. AIS 8015 (2) Whether petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased and if so, are they entitled to compensation and to what amount (3) To what relief

( 5 ) BEFORE the Tribunal, the claimants in the O. P. examined the wife of the deceased as PW 1 and an eyewitness to the accident by name Mohd. Shahbuddin as PW 2 and marked Exhs. A-l to A-9. On behalf of the respondents the respondent No. 3/driver of Allwyn Nissan van was examined as RW 1 and no documents are marked.

( 6 ) ON appreciation of evidence, the tribunal held on issue No. 1 that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Allwyn Nissan van by the respondent No. 3. On issue No. 2, the tribunal held that the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased. Taking the net salary of the deceased as Rs. 1,401 and deducting 1/3rd thereof for his personal expenses the tribunal fixed the monthly contribution of the deceased as Rs. 934. Taking the age of the deceased as 34 years and applying the multiplier of 15, the Tribunal determined the loss of dependency of the claimants as Rs. 1,68,120. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000 to the claimant No. 1/wife of the deceased towards loss of consortium. Thus, in all, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,78,120 in favour of the claimants with interest at 12 per cent per annum, from the date of filing of O. P. till the date of realisation, directing respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to jointly and severally pay the same to the claimants. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal; this appeal is preferred by the claimants in the O. P.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal erroneously fixed the monthly contribution of the deceased to his family as Rs. 934 after deducting 1/3rd from Rs. 1,401 which is the net salary of the deceased. He contended that while determining the monthly salary of the deceased, except the items of compensatory allowance and professional tax, the Tribunal ought to have treated the deductions shown towards EPF, LIC, group insurance, bank loan, benefit fund contributions, as the income of the deceased. 7a. On behalf of the respondents, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India appeared and contended that there are no valid grounds to interfere with the order and decree of the Tribunal.

( 8 ) THE point for consideration in this appeal is whether the gross salary of the deceased has to be taken into consideration for determining compensation payable to claimants or any deduction is permissible from the gross salary of the deceased to ascertain the contribution of the deceased to the claimants, and whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is justified in fixing the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs. 1,401 and, whether the compensation awarded is just compensation

( 9 ) THE deceased S. Mallikharjun was working as a Junior Assistant in SETWIN and was aged about 34 years at the time of his death. He was drawing a salary of Rs. 2,800 per month according to Exh. A-7, salary certificate. The salary certificate shows that after deductions, he is receiving Rs. 1,401 per month. One of the deductions is the instalment towards the vehicle loan. In the circumstances, what is the salary to be taken into consideration to ascertain the just compensation, is the question.

( 10 ) POINTS for determining just and reasonable compensation: It is well settled principle that the compensation determined is neither low nor windfall to the claimants. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the provisions of section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (old Act) or section 168 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (new Act) which clearly indicates that on receipt of application for compensation the Claims Tribunal shall hold an inquiry into the claim and make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to be just. As per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the amount of compensation is expected to be just. The justness of the compensation always needs to be determined with reference to the peculiar facts of each case. As there can be no exact uniform rule of measuring the value of human life by process of mathematical calculations, the life expectancy of the deceased or of the beneficiaries whichever is shorter is an important factor for determining suitable multiplier. In assessing the compensation the court must exclude all considerations or matters which rest in speculation or fancy. The mode of ascertainment of compensation depends upon so many imponderables. The dependency or pecuniary loss to be determined by the court is the loss, which would be sustained in future. The normal nature of calculating the compensation is to assess the net income of the deceased available for support of himself and dependants. Thereafter deductions to be made in regard to the amounts spent by the deceased for his maintenance. The Honble Apex Court, while considering the scope of compensation under section 110-B of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939 (old Act) in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Trans, Corpn. , 1999 ACJ 10 (SC), held that section 110-B of the old Act empowers the tribunals to determine the compensation which appears to it to be just. It was held that the words used in section 110-B, viz. , which appears to it to be just widen the scope of determination of compensation which is neither under the Indian Fatal accidents Act, 1855 nor under the English Fatal Accidents Act, 1846. Thus, it shows that the word just was deliberately brought in section 110-B of the old Act to enlarge the consideration in computing the compensation. It is held in Helen C. Rebellos case (supra) at para 30:"the word just, as its nomenclature denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness having large peripheral field. The largeness is, of course, not arbitrary; it is restricted by the conscience which is fair, reasonable and equitable; if it exceeds, it is termed as unfair, unreasonable, inequitable, not just. Thus, this field of wider discretion of the Tribunal has to be within the said limitations and the limitations under any provision of this Act or any other provision having force of law. "

( 11 ) AT para 31 of Helen C. Rebellos case, 1999 ACJ 10 (SC), Honble Supreme court, while considering the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (old Act), the fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and section 7 of the Insurance Act, 1938, held that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are beneficial in nature and so they should be interpreted which confers benefits and not which usurp its benefit. In that context, it was held: thus, we have no hesitation in concluding that the Tribunal, while computing the compensation under section 110-B of the 1939 Act, has a wider discretion, than what it had under the 1855 Act. Various provisions of this Act indicate legislatures intent conferring visible benefit to claimant by securing the compensation through casting obligation on the tortfeasor and the insurer. Section 94 makes it obligatory to insure a vehicle against third party risk before putting on the road. Statutory obligation and the limit of the insurer is provided under section 95. Under section 95-AA in addition to the deposits under section 7 of the Insurance Act, 1938, the insurer has to deposit with the Reserve Bank of India or State Bank of India a security of thirty thousand for discharging any liability covered by the insurance policy. Then, section 96 casts obligation on the insurers to satisfy judgments in respect of third party risks. No settlement between insurer and insured in respect of any claim to which the third party is entitled, is valid unless third party is a party to such settlement under section 99. All these and such other provisions are clearly beneficial legislation, hence should be interpreted which confers benefit and not which usurps its benefit. "

( 12 ) IN this background, now we will examine the present deductions made by the Tribunal from the salary of the deceased in fixing the monthly contribution of the deceased to his family. The Tribunal has not even taken proper care to see at least the very nature of deductions while deducting the amounts from the salary of the deceased. My view is that the deductions made by the Tribunal from the salary such as recovery of housing loan, vehicle loan, festival advance and other deductions, if any, to the benefit of the estate of the deceased cannot be deducted while computing the net monthly earnings of the deceased. These advances or loans are part of his salary. So far as house rent allowance is concerned, it is beneficial to the entire family of the deceased during his tenure, but due to his untimely death the claimants are deprived of such a benefit which they would have enjoyed if the deceased is alive. On the other hand, allowances, like travelling allowance, allowance for newspapers/periodicals, telephone, servant, club-fee, car maintenance, etc., by virtue of his vocation need not be included in the salary while computing the net earnings of the deceased. The finding of the tribunal that the deceased was getting Rs. 1,401 as net income every month is unsustainable as the deductions made towards vehicle loan and other deductions were also taken into consideration while fixing the monthly income of the deceased. The above finding of the Tribunal is contrary to the principle of just compensation enunciated by the Apex Court in the judgment in Helens case, 1999 ACJ 10 (SC). The supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi, 1980 ACJ 55 (SC), held that determination of quantum must be liberal and not niggardly since law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales,

( 13 ) IN Hardeo Kaur v. Rajasthan State road Trans. Corpn. , 1992 ACJ 300 (SC), the Honble Supreme Court held that there was no basis or justification before the tribunal to have reached the finding that the deceased was spending half of the salary on himself for his personal expenses and fixed the monthly contribution of the deceased to his family as Rs. 1,400 out of his monthly salary of Rs. 2,200.

( 14 ) IN S. Chandra v. Pallavan Trans. Corpn. , 1995 ACJ 1170 (SC), the deceased was an employee, aged 42 years and according to Exh. P-4, salary certificate, his monthly salary was Rs. 630. 08 and it was held that out of that salary the deceased could have provided 2/3rd of it to his family.

( 15 ) IN Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, 1996 ACJ 581 (SC), the deceased was a lieutenant in Army drawing a salary of rs. 1,543 per month. The Apex Court by considering the future prospects of the deceased held that Rs. 1,500 per month would have been the average monthly contribution of the deceased and awarded compensation on that basis.

( 16 ) IN the instant case, as per Exh. A-7, salary certificate, the salary of the deceased was Rs. 2,489. The net salary after deductions towards EPF, LIC, G.. , loan from bank, etc. , is shown as Rs. 1,401. Exh. A-7, salary certificate of the deceased was issued by the Accounts Officer, SETWIN, hyderabad on 31. 1. 1995 to the wife of the deceased. It contains the particulars of pay and allowances which the deceased was drawing at the time of his death, together with the deductions from his monthly salary. Exh. A-7 reads thus: "salary Certificate late S. Mallikharjun, Jr. Asstt. was drawing the following emoluments per month.

Net pay Rs. 1,401 only per month. This certificate is issued on the request of S. Narayanamma, legal heirs of late s. Mallikharjun, to file a case in the court. Sd/- Accounts Officer, set win. "

( 17 ) ACCORDING to me, the contributions made by the deceased employee towards employees Provident Fund, life insurance (LIC), group insurance and the deductions shown in the salary certificate of the deceased employee towards the vehicle loan instalment, the benefit fund, and also the amounts received by the deceased employee towards interim relief, special pay, dearness allowance, house rent allowance, need not be deducted from the gross salary of the deceased for ascertaining the income, because the contributions or deductions made towards EPF, LIC, group insurance and benefit fund would be beneficial to the family of the deceased employee and it would be the estate of the deceased. The deduction towards vehicle loan is not permanent in nature. In view of the facts and circumstances, after deducting C. A. (compensatory allowance of Rs. 45) and P. T. (professional tax of Rs. 20) from the gross salary of the deceased employee, the net salary of the deceased comes to Rs. 2,424 (i.e., Rs. 2,489 minus Rs. 65). Out of the said amount of Rs. 2,424, if we deduct 1/3rd thereof (Rs. 808, i.e., one-third of Rs. 2,424), the monthly contribution of the deceased to his family can be fixed as Rs. 1,616 (i.e., Rs. 2,424 minus Rs. 808), which can be rounded off to Rs. 1,600. Then the annual loss of dependency or pecuniary damages comes to Rs. 19,200 (i.e., Rs. 1,600 x 12). The multiplier applicable to this case is 15. Then the total loss of dependency or pecuniary loss comes to Rs. 2,88,000 (Rs. 19,200 x 15 or Rs. 1,600 x 12 x 15). In addition to that, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 15,000 towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000 towards loss of consortium. So the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 3,18,000. Since the claim in the O. P. itself is for Rs. 3,00,000, the compensation now enhanced is restricted to Rs. 3,00,000.

( 18 ) IN the result the appeal is allowed, enhancing the total compensation from Rs. 1,78,120 to Rs. 3,00,000 with costs in the O. P. , together with interest at 12 per cent per annum (on the compensation granted originally by the Tribunal and also on the enhanced compensation amount now granted in this appeal) from the date of filing of O. P. till the date of realisation. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to pay the same jointly and severally to the appellants-claimants. The apportionment of compensation (including the enhanced compensation) amongst the claimants shall be in the same mode and ratio as is fixed by the Tribunal while awarding compensation in the O. P. The rest of the directions in the order and decree of the Tribunal relating to the minor claimants-appellants shall stand unaltered. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal allowed.