Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

C.M.A.N0.372 of 1982.

Advocates

Mr. P.J George for applts.
Mr. R. Sundaravaradan for respt.

Judges

Sengottuvelan
David Annoussamy, JJ.

Acts

FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Judgment Summary — Sengottuvelan, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the parents of the deceased, Srinivasan, who were petitioners in M.O.P. 182 of 1979 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chengalpattu. Srinivasan (age 24 at time of accident) died on 11.12.1978 in a road accident on G.S.T. Road, Tapal Medu village, while riding a motorcycle with another person. A bus of the Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation (Regn. TMN 936) coming from the opposite direction allegedly attempted to overtake a lorry, moved onto the western side of the road and struck the motorcycle, throwing both riders off and causing both deaths. The parents (appellants) claimed compensation for loss of support.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal accepted the unrebutted evidence of an eyewitness (P.W.4) and found the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the bus. The Tribunal calculated the deceased's annual income (after excluding gratuity) and assessed monthly income, allowances for maintenance and travel, projected future contribution, capitalised loss of support and awarded compensation. The Tribunal observed that the appellants had received Rs. 50,000 under a group insurance policy and Rs. 30,000 under an accident benefit policy (total Rs. 80,000) and concluded that because the appellants had received Rs. 80,000, no amount was payable to them by way of loss of support; only Rs. 10,000 was awarded for pain and suffering (Rs. 5,000 each).

The appellants challenged the Tribunal's deduction of the insurance and accident benefit receipts from the loss-of-support compensation and filed this appeal attacking the legality and correctness of the Tribunal's award.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether amounts received by the deceased's dependents under a Group Insurance policy and an Accident Benefit policy are to be deducted from the compensation awarded for loss of support by a tortfeasor.
If such amounts are to be considered, to what extent (if any) should they reduce the compensation payable for loss of support?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

The Tribunal erred in deducting the amounts received under the Group Insurance policy and the Accident Benefit policy from the compensation calculated for loss of support; the appellants should not have those receipts set off against the tortfeasor's liability.

Respondent's Arguments

The Tribunal was correct in deducting the insurance and accident benefit receipts from the compensation payable; the respondent relied on precedent (specifically Nirmala Thirunavukarasu v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board) in support of that approach.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Nirmala Thirunavukarasu v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 97 L.W. 42 = 1984 A.C.J. 210	Deduction of amount received by dependent under Family Benefit Scheme from compensation (decision by Kader, J.). No reasoning given in reported judgment.	The respondent relied on this case to justify the Tribunal's deduction; the present court noted it but considered other authorities and reasons for not following a blanket deduction of insurance proceeds.
A.P. Dorairaj v. State of Madras by Commissioner of Police, 87 L.W. 21 = 1974 A.C.J. 174	Where injured receives gratuitous payments equal to wages, such payments are not to be taken into account in assessing wrongdoer's liability for loss of wages.	Referred to illustrate judicial authority against reducing tortfeasor's liability by amounts paid by others to the injured.
Bhagwanti Devi v. Ishkumar, 1975 A.C.J. 56 (Delhi)	Gratuity, pension, provident fund and insurance amounts cannot be deducted from compensation payable.	Quoted and relied upon to support the view that benefits for which the deceased had paid should not be given to the wrongdoer; the court cited its reasoning approvingly.
Sivammal v. Managing Director, Pandian Roadways Corpn., A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 106	Reduction in compensation because widow entitled to pension is not justifiable (Supreme Court decision; earlier decisions not uniform).	Used to demonstrate Supreme Court authority against reducing compensation for benefits like pension; supports non-deduction of insurance-like benefits.
Prakashvati & ors. v. The Delhi Dayal Bagh Dairy Ltd., 1967 A.C.J. 82 (Punjab)	Division Bench justified deduction of proceeds of an insurance policy (no detailed rationale reported).	Noted as an example of decisions allowing deduction; court observed inconsistency in earlier authorities.
Damayanti Devi & others v. Sita Devi & others, 1972 A.C.J. 334 (Punjab)	Held that deduction of proceeds of insurance policy was unjustified.	Referred to as supporting non-deduction; used to show conflicting precedents within same High Court.
Ishwari Devi v. Union of India & others, 1968 A.C.J. 141 (Delhi)	Division Bench held proceeds of life insurance policy could not be deducted.	Referred to in support of the proposition that life insurance proceeds should not reduce tortfeasor's liability.
Unique Motor & General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mrs. Krishnan Kishori & others, 1968 A.C.J. 318 (P&H)	Single Judge upheld deduction of insurance amount (no reasoning reported).	Noted as an authority allowing deduction but lacking reasoning; used to illustrate inconsistency.
Johinder Nath & others v. Shanti Devi & others, 1967 A.C.J. 150 (Punjab)	Single Judge approved deduction in respect of provident fund amount.	Recorded as an instance permitting deduction of retirement-related sums.
Dr. Ramsaran & another v. Shrimati Shakuntala Bai, A.I.R. 1961 Punjab 400	Earlier decision approving deduction (context: provident fund/pension-type deductions).	Referred to as part of a line of authorities supporting deduction in some circumstances.
Mohinder Kaur & others v. Manphool Singh & others, 1973 A.C.J. 515 (Delhi)	Single Judge allowed deduction on account of pension (no in-depth discussion reported).	Noted among decisions allowing deductions without detailed reasoning.
Life Insurance Corpn. of India & ors. v. Legal Representatives of deceased Naranbhai Munjabai Vadhia (Gujarat High Court)	Division Bench (relying on Parry v. Greaver) held insurance and retirement cum gratuity benefits could not be deducted.	Referred to as authority holding non-deductibility of insurance and retirement benefits; relied upon by the court in principle.
Union of India v. Sona Babiloni (High Court of Jammu & Kashmir)	Held that group insurance, life insurance, provident fund, pension and education allowance for children are not deductible from compensation.	Referred to support view that these receipts should not reduce the tortfeasor's liability.
Liffen v. Watson (English Court of Appeal)	Wrongdoer must recompense plaintiff for all damages which naturally flow from the wrong; payment by others (e.g., free boarding from a third party) does not negate compensation entitlement.	Used to illustrate English authority for not reducing damages by payments made by others to the injured; supports the non-deduction principle.
Dennis v. London Passenger Transport Board (English Court of Appeal)	Amounts received by injured from Minister of Pensions and employer to make up wages should not reduce damages payable by wrongdoer; wrongdoer cannot benefit from others' payments.	Relied upon for the proposition that the tortfeasor should not be allowed to reduce damages on account of third-party payments to the injured.
Percy v. Cleavet (House of Lords)	Pension and insurance receipts (product of past service or thrift) should not be given to tortfeasor; the plaintiff should not be worse off because of having insured.	Quoted for the principle that insurance premiums paid by the injured justify disregarding insurance receipts for deduction; applied mutatis mutandis to hold insurance proceeds non-deductible.
Mayne & McGregor on ‘Damages’ (12th Edn.)	Commentary noting that principle demands no reduction in damages even where there is no expectation of repayment to benefactors.	Invoked to reinforce the principle from Dennis and Percy that third-party payments do not reduce the tortfeasor's liability.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the question whether sums received under a Group Insurance policy and an Accident Benefit policy should be deducted from the compensation for loss of support. It reviewed a number of conflicting authorities from various High Courts, a Supreme Court decision and English authorities. The court framed the legal question around two distinct categories of receipts:

Deferred earnings/benefits tied to employment or thrift (e.g., provident fund, family pension, gratuity, life insurance): the court reasoned these are "deferred fruits" of the deceased's service, thrift or contractual/statutory entitlements and do not arise purely from the accident. Such benefits were characterised as deferred earnings or quid pro quo for past service or contributions. The court relied on English authorities (including Liffen, Dennis and Percy) and Indian decisions that endorse the view that benefits paid because of prior contributions or thrift should not in principle be used to reduce the tortfeasor's liability, since to do so would reward the wrongdoer with sums which the deceased had earned or provided for by way of premiums or contributions.
Accident Benefit policy receipts: the court distinguished accident benefit receipts from the employment-derived benefits. Although arising from the deceased's foresight or carefulness, the accident benefit was paid specifically because of the death resulting from an accident. Therefore, the court held the accident benefit must be treated differently: it should be taken into account in assessing loss of support, but not necessarily deducted in full. The court concluded that a portion only should be allowed to offset the tortfeasor's liability.

On balancing the conflicting authorities and principles, the court drew these conclusions:

Proceeds of group life insurance and analogous employment-related benefits (pension, gratuity, provident fund) are generally not to be deducted from compensation for loss of support because they are deferred earnings or benefits for which the deceased had paid or earned; allowing a deduction effectively benefits the wrongdoer.
Proceeds of an Accident Benefit policy are to be treated differently: the court considered that some portion can legitimately be deducted from the compensation for loss of support. The court suggested that, in normal circumstances, one-third of the Accident Benefit policy amount may be treated as deductible (i.e., one-third offsets the loss), leaving two-thirds to be restored to the claimants.
In the specific case, the court found the Tribunal's deduction of the entire amount of the group insurance and the entire accident benefit was incorrect. The court ordered that the deduction made for the group insurance must be set aside (i.e., the group insurance amount is not deductible) and that two-thirds of the previously deducted Accident Benefit amount should be restored to the appellants (leaving a one-third deduction effectively permissible).
Additionally, the court applied an allowance for lump-sum payment and imponderables in life at 10% when capitalising loss of support, and adjusted the calculations accordingly.

The court set out its arithmetic: starting from total loss of support Rs. 77,200, it allowed Rs. 7,200 (10%) for lump-sum/imponderables to reach Rs. 70,000, then deducted Rs. 10,000 as the proportion attributable to the Accident Benefit policy (reflecting the one-third deductibility principle in the facts of the case), resulting in Rs. 60,000 as the balance loss of support payable to the appellants. That sum was directed to be apportioned equally between the two appellants.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeal is allowed in part. The Tribunal's deduction of the entire Group Insurance receipt was set aside (group insurance proceeds are not deductible); two-thirds of the deduction made in respect of the Accident Benefit policy was restored to the appellants (leaving an effective deduction of one-third of the Accident Benefit receipt). After allowing 10% for lump-sum/imponderables, the court computed the payable loss of support at Rs. 60,000, to be divided equally between the appellants. There is no order as to costs.

Implications:

Direct effect on the parties: The appellants recover a revised amount of Rs. 60,000 for loss of support (apportioned equally), instead of the Tribunal's earlier conclusion that no amount was payable for loss of support because of Rs. 80,000 receipts. The Tribunal's award is modified accordingly.
Legal principle applied: The court reaffirmed the distinction between employment-derived/deferred benefits (life insurance, gratuity, provident fund, pension) — which generally should not be deducted from damages because they represent deferred earnings or the product of the deceased's contributions — and accident-specific receipts (Accident Benefit policy) — which may be partly deductible; the court indicated that normally one-third of such accident benefit receipts may be deducted when assessing loss of support.
The opinion surveys conflicting authorities and explains the rationale for its approach; while it applies these principles to the present facts and modifies the Tribunal's award, the judgment primarily resolves the specific dispute between the parties rather than announcing a sweeping new rule beyond the reasoning it adopts in the decision.

Result: Appeal allowed in part; compensation for loss of support recalculated and directed to be equally apportioned between the appellants; no costs ordered.

Show full summary ...

T.R Rangaswami And Another v. Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation (Express Wing) Rep. By Its, Mg. Director, Madras.

JUDGMENT

Sengottuvelan, J.:—This civil miscelleneous appeal is filed by the parents of the victim Srinivasan, who are the petitioners in M.O.P 182 of 1979 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chengalpattu, challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, in the above said petition.

2. The facts of the case are briefly as follow: One Srinivasan aged 25 was killed in the road accident on 11.12.1978 at G.S.T Road in Tapal Medu village. The accident occurred while the said Srinivasan and another Mohamed Mustaq were proceeding in a motor cycle in the G.S.T Road from north to south, while the bus belonging to the Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation bearing Registration number TMN 936 was coming from south to north in the G.S.T Road, dashed against them resulting in the death of both of them. Hence the parents of the victim Srinivasan filed MOP 182 of 1979 on the rile of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chengalpattu, claiming compensation towards loss of support.

3. According to the version of P.W.4, who was an eye witness to the accident, the bus belonging to Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation bearing Registration Number TMN 936 following a lorry attempted to overtake the lorry and for that purpose came to the western side of the road and hit against the motor cycle as a result of which both the riders of the motor cycle were thrown away from the motor cycle. The unrebuted version of P.W.4 was accepted by the Tribunal which came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus TMN 936. Late Srinivasan was born on 10-3-1953 as seen from his S.S.L.C book and he was 24 years old at the time of the accident. He was employed as a medical representative with Hoechest Pharmaceuticals Ltd. According to the pay certificate Ex.A 2, the total income of the deceased for the year 1978—79 under various heads, viz., salary, commission, bonus, exgratia additional dearness allowance and gratuity was Rs. 17,885.36. The Tribunal deducted the gratuity amount and arrived at a sum of Rs. 15,206-36 as the total income and arrived at the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1267. After allowing expenses for maintenance and travelling, the Tribunal arrived at the loss of support to the parents of the deceased at Rs. 500 per month. The Tribunal also took the view that the appellants could have received Rs. 500 for 32 months i.e, till the deceased reached 28 years and afterwards there is a likelihood of the deceased being married and after such marriage the contribution of the deceased would be reduced to Rs. 150 per month. The Tribunal also took the view that the first appellant would get the support of the deceased for 12 years since he was aged 55 and the second appellant would get the support for 22 years, since she was aged 45 years. Capitalising the loss at the above rates, the Tribunal arrived at the compensation payable to the appellants at Rs. 77,200 from which the Tribunal deducted certain percentage towards lump sum payment and uncertainties in life. The Tribunal assessed the damage on account of pain and suffering undergone by the appellants on account of loss of son at Rs. 5,000, each totalling Rs. 10,000. After assessing the damage as stated above the Tribunal took note of the fact that the appellants received a sum of Rs. 50,000 under the group Insurance policy and Rs. 30,000 under the Accidents Benefit policy, which were taken by the deceased, totalling Rs. 80,000. The Tribunal held that on account of the fact that a sum of Rs. 80,000 had been received by the appellants no amount is payable by way of loss of support to the appellants and awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000 only towards pain and suffering undergone by the appellants. This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed challenging the legality and correctness of the award passed by the Tribunal.

4. The basis on which the loss of support arrived at by the Tribunal is not seriously challenged. The only point that is raised on behalf of the appellant is that the Tribunal ought not to have deducted the amounts received under the Group Insurance policy and Accidents Benefit policy from the amount arrived at towards loss of support and the Tribunal is not justified in coming to the conclusion that no amount need be paid to the appellants towards loss of support.

5. On this interesting question whether the insurance amounts are to be deducted from the compensation payable to the dependents of the victim of the accident, judicial opinion is not uniform. In the case reported in Nirmala Thirunavukarasu v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board . 97 L.W 42=1984 A.C.J 210., a case arising under Fatal Accidents Act, Kader, J. deducted the amount received by the dependent under the Family Benefit Scheme from the compensation payable. Unfortunately no reasoning is given in the judgment for such reduction. Relying on this judgment it is contended on behalf of the respondent the Tribunal is right in deducting the amounts received by the appellants under the Group Insurance policy and the accident benefit policy from the compensation payable. In the case reported in A.P Dorairaj v. State of Madras by Commissioner of Police . 87 L.W 21 = 1974 A.C.J 174., a Division Bench of this Court held that where the injured receives payments or other benefits gratuitously which might equal his wages, such payments are not to be taken into consideration in assessing the liability of the wrong doer to recompense the injured regarding loss of wages. A single Judge of the Delhi High Court in the case reported in Bhagwanti Devi v. Ishkumar . 1975 A.C.J 56 Delhi. held that gratuity, pension provident fund and insurance amounts cannot be deducted from the amount of compensation payable. In the course of the judgment, the single Judge observed as follows:—

“It thus appears that there is considerable judicial authority both in England and in this country in favour of exclusion of benefits receive by the legal representatives on account of life insurance policy pension, gratuity, provident fund and other such benefits from consideration in determining the amount of compensation which appeared to the Tribunal to be just on account of loss of pecuniary benefit arising out of death and this exclusion would appear to me to be just and reasonable because these are benefits for which the deceased had paid. These benefits are in the nature of Quid Pro Quo and have relation to the savings effected by the deceased besides having their genesis either in the contract or in the past service and good conduct and these benefits arising out of the death of a person in the sense in which the action for damages or inheritance could be related to such an event. There would be no justification therefore, to give the benefit of these payments to the wrong doer, who, by his negligent act, has caused the death of a person.”

In the case reported in Sivammal v. Managing Director, Pandian Roadways Corpn. . A.I.R 1985 S.C 106 S.C. the Supreme Court held that the reduction in the compensation on account of the fact that the widow of the deceased is entitled to pension is not justifiable. Earlier decisions relating to this point are not uniform.

6. In the case reported in Prakashvati and other v. The Delhi Dayal Bagh Dairy Ltd . 1967 A.C.J 82 Punjab., a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court justified the deduction of the proceeds of an insurance policy although there is no discussions as to the rationale for such a deduction. In a later decision of the same Court reported in Damayanti Devi and others v. Sita Devi and others . 1972 A.C.J 334 do., it has been held that the deduction on account of the proceeds of insurance policy was unjustified. In the case reported in Ishwari Devi v. Union of India and others . 1968 A.C.J 141 Delhi., a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that the proceeds of life insurance policy could not be deducted. Again in the case reported in Unique Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Mrs. Krishnan Kishori and others . 1968 A.C.J 318 P&H, a single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the deduction of the Insurance amount, but there is no reasoning for such a conclusion. In the case reported in Johinder Nath and others v. Shanti devi and others . 1967 A.C.J 150 do, a single Judge of the Punjab High Court approved the deduction in respect of the provident fund amount. To the same effect is the earlier decision reported in Dr. Ramsaran and another v. Shrimati Shakuntala Bai . A.I.R 1961 Punjab 400.. In the case reported in Mohinder Kaur and others v. Manphool Singh and others . 1973 A.C.J 515 Dehli, a single Judge of the Delhi High Court allowed the deduction on account of pension but there is no further discussion on the question.

6a. In the case reported in Life Insurance Corpn. of India and others v. Legal Representatives of deceased Naranbhai Munjabai Vadhia, a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court relying on the authority of Parry v. Greaver, held that the Insurance and retirement cum gratuity benefits could not be deducted. In the case reported in Union of India v. Sona Babiloni, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir held that the amount received by the claimant on account of group insurance scheme. Life Insurance policy, provident fund pension and education allowance tor children are not deductible from the amount of compensation arrived at.

7. We have to consider the question whether the insutance amount and the amount received under the accident benefit policy are deductible in the light of the above decisions. The nature of the benefits like provident fund, family pension or gratuity is that they are the deferred fruits of satisfactory service, industry, thrift, contributions and foresight of the employee. These may be the necessary incidents of statutory service rules, employment contracts, or beneficient legislation rooted in the employment of the deceased. It cannot be said that these payments had been derived entirely due to the accident and the resultant death. If the deceased had not contributed to any of these schemes then he would not have derived any benefit from the same. These benefits can only be termed as deferred earnings of the deceased payable on death whereas the compensation payable by the Tortfeasor will amount to damages payable for his negligent act which causes the loss of support to the family of the victim. The above principle is well recognised in the following English decisions under the Fatal Accidents Act.

8. In Liffen v. Watson a domestic woman servant, who had been receiving from her employer a wage of 1 pound a week plus free boarding and lodging, was injured in an accident and while she was under treatment she was living with her father to whom she made no payment for boarding and lodging. In an action by her against the wrongdoer, whose negligence caused the accident the court of appeal in England held that the injured was entitled to recover damages not only in respect of her loss of wages but also in respect of her loss of boarding and lodging. It was pointed out that the fact that during the period when the employer was not giving her free boarding and lodging, she had received such free boarding and lodging from her father is no ground to disallow the claim for loss of free boarding and lodging. On the principle that the wrongdoer must recompense a plaintiff for all the damages which naturally flow from the wrongdoer. The case reported in Dennis v. London Passenger Transport Boara is a case where a person, who was injured in an accident, which was a result of wrongful act on the part of the defendant, during the period when he was out of employment had received certain amount from the the Minister of Pensions and certain amount from his employers themselves and all the amounts so received equalled his wages which he would have earned if he had gone to work. But the Court of Appeal held that the amount so received by the injured should not be taken into consideration in awarding the special damages payable by the wrongdoer. Denning, J. observed that a wrongdoer is not to be allowed to reduce damages by the fact that other persons have made up to the plaintiff his wages and that in point of law the plaintiff should have his wages paid by the wrongdoer as he has lost the same. It is also observed that, the plaintiff was under a moral obligation to refund the amounts to the Minister of Pensions and the plaintiff's employer, viz., the London County Council, on his getting damages from the wrongdoer to recompense him towards loss of wages. In Mayne and Mc. Gregor on ‘Damages’, 12th Edn, 663, the above cases are referred to and it is stated that even if there had been no expectation of repayment on the part of the benefactors, it would seem that principle demands that there should still be no reduction in the damages, as recompense to employers should depend only on the conscience of the employee. Therefore even if there was no moral obligation on the part of the injured to refund the amounts to the person who had paid him and even if there was no chance of the injured so repaying, the wrongdoer cannot be heard to say that there was no loss of wages and that therefore he would not recompense the injured. In the case reported in Percy v. Cleavet, the claimant had sustained injuries in a motor accident as a result of which he was discharged from service. He was awarded disablement pension and the question arose whether the pension received by him should be deducted while assessing the liabilities. On behalf of the claimant it was contended that pension, like Life insurance, was the product of the employee's past services or thrift and the benefit of the same cannot be given to the tortfeasor. The House of Lords in deciding the question observed as follows—

“As regards moneys coming to the plaintiff under a contract of insurance, I think that the real and substantial reason for disregarding them is that the plaintiff has brought them and that it would be unjust and unreasonable to hold that the money which he prudently spent on premiums and the benefit from it should enure to the benefit of the tortfeasor. Hereagain I think that the explanation that this is too remote is artificial and unreal. Why should the plaintiff be left worse off than if he had never insured? In that case, he would have got the benefit of the premium money; if he had not spent it he should have had it in his possession at the time of the accident grossed up at compound interest.”

The principle laid down in the above case can be applied mutatis mutandis to this case and the resultant conclusion is that the insurance amount is not deductible from the amount of compensation payable.

9. In so far as Accident Benefit Policy is concerned, it stands on a slightly different Hooting. Though the Accidents Benefit policy is the result of carfulness on the part of the deceased yet the benefit had occurred on account of the death of the deceased. The amount received by the deceased on an Accident Benefit Policy will have to be taken into consideration in arriving at the loss of support, but at the same time it cannot be said that the entire amount received from the Accidents Benefit policy will have to be deducted. We must also bear in mind that the thrift and the carefulness on the part of the deceased cannot go to the benefit of the wrongdoer. Bearing this principle in mind we have to conclude that a certain portion of the Accidents Benefit policy amount can be deducted from the total compensation arrived at. In normal circumstances, one-third of the Accidents Benefit policy amount can be said to be so deductible.

10. In this case the basis on which the Tribunal arrived at the loss of support at Rs 77,200 is not seriously disputed. The only point canvassed by the appellants is the deduction of the entire amount received by way of Group Insurance Policy and the Accidents Benefit Scheme. In the light of the conclusion arrived at the deduction made by the Tribunal on account of Group Insurance Policy will have to be restored. In respect of the deduction made on account of the Accident Benefit policy, the two-thirds will have to be restored. Apart from this we have to make allowance for lump sum payment and imponderable in life which in this case may be worked out at 10 per cent. On the above basis the loss of support by way of compensation payable to the appellants works out as follows—

Total amount arrived towards loss of support.. Rs. 77,200 Deduction for lump sum payment and imponderables. Rs. 7,200 Rs. 70,000 Deduction for the benefit accrued on account of the Accident Benefit Policy..... Rs. 10,000 Balance..... Rs. 60,000

The said amount is directed to be apportioned equally between the appellants. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part as indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.

RR/VCS.

T.R Rangaswami And A... v. Thiruvalluvar Transp...