JUDGMENT Sengottuvelan, J. 1. Both these civil miscellaneous appeals arise out of the judgment of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Ramanathapuram at Madurai in M.A.C.O.P. 43 of 1979. M/s. Pandyan Roadways Corporation Ltd., the second respondent before the Tribunal, has filed C.M.A. 653 of 1980 challenging the correctness of the award passed by the Tribunal. The petitioners in M.A.C.O.P. No. 46 of 1979 had filed C.M.A. 718 of 1982 for the portion of the compensation disallowed by the Tribunal from the claim made by them. 2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows :- The claimants, viz., R. Jayalaksbmi and v. Karuppiammal are the wife and mother respectively of the deceased E. Ramaswami, aged 31, and who was working as a junior Assistant in the office of the Assistant Accounts Officer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Manamadurai. The said E. Ramaswami died on 4-2-1979 in an accident when he was returning to his village. At that time while crossing the bye-pass road in his cycle along the left side of the road the bus belonging to the Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd., bearing TMN 5194 dashed against him as a result of which he was killed on the spot. The wife and mother of the deceased had come forward with the claim for compensation. On the basis of the argument advanced before us the points for determination in both the above appeals are as follows: (1) Whether the death had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus TMN 5194 ? (2) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is correct ? 4. According to the claimants the deceased met with his death on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus TMN 5194. We have the evidence of P.W. 3, the eye-witness. In chief examination P.W. 3 deposed that when the deceased Ramaswami was crossing the road from south to north, the bus which was coming from east to west dashed against him and dragged him upto the near bridge. The bus also as a result of the impact capsized. He also deposed that at the time of the accident the bus was driven at a high speed. In cross examination he has also stated that the deceased Ramaswami had crossed one-half of the road at the time when the bus dashed against him. The bus also as a result of the impact capsized. He also deposed that at the time of the accident the bus was driven at a high speed. In cross examination he has also stated that the deceased Ramaswami had crossed one-half of the road at the time when the bus dashed against him. As against this evidence, the driver of the bus who was examined as R.W. 1, had stated that he drove the bus at a speed of 30 K.M.P.H and that the deceased who was coming on the left side of the road had suddenly crossed into the main road and inspite of applying brake the accident had happened. The Tribunal on this evidence had come to the conclusion that the bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner. This finding is challenged on behalf of the Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd. From the facts it is seen that the bus had not only dashed against the deceased but also dashed against the culvert and capsized. The fact that the bus capsized and the same could not be controlled clearly shows that the bus must have been driven at that time at a high speed. According to P.W. 1 the deceased had crossed the road and when he was on the left side of the road the bus dashed against him. If that was so the driver of the vehicle ought to bear the blame. According to the driver, the deceased had suddenly crossed and that he could not stop the bus in spite of applying brake. Even if the deceased had crossed suddenly yet a duty is cast upon the driver to avert the accident. From the fact that the deceased was found on the left side of the road it cannot be said that the deceased had crossed the road suddenly as spoken by R.W. 1. Considering the entire circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus will have to be sustained. 5. The second question to be considered is regarding the quantum of compensation awarded. The deceased was working as a Junior Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board at the time of the accident and he was drawing a total salary of Rs. 464-75. He was aged 31 years according to the S.S.L.C. book which is marked as Ex. 5. The second question to be considered is regarding the quantum of compensation awarded. The deceased was working as a Junior Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board at the time of the accident and he was drawing a total salary of Rs. 464-75. He was aged 31 years according to the S.S.L.C. book which is marked as Ex. A3. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased might have contributed a sum of Rs. 300 out of the salary of Rs. 464-75 per month and adopting the multiplier 27 based upon his age, arrived at the total loss of support at Rs. 97,200. Out of this the Tribunal deducted one-third amounting to Rs. 32,400 for lump sum payment and other imponderable in life. From the balance of Rs. 64,800 the Tribunal deducted Rs. 10,000 the amount paid under the Family Benefit Scheme and arrived at the balance of Rs. 54,800. According to the evidence, the claimants are receiving a sum of Rs. 82 per month by way of family pension from the Electricity Board and on that account the Tribunal took one half of the said family pension and capitalised it to Rs. 13,284 and deducted the same from Rs. 54,800 and arrived at Rs. 41,516. By adding a sum of Rs. 500 towards pain and suffering and Rs. 200 towards damage to the cycle and clothes the Tribunal arrived at the total compensation payable at Rs. 42,116. 6. On behalf of the claimants the following contentions are raised. (1) The Tribunal ought not to have deducted one-third of the amount of the total loss of support for lump sum payment and other imponderable. (2) The Tribunal ought not to have deducted the sum of Rs. 10,000 received under the family benefit scheme and also ought not to have deducted a sum of Rs. 13,284 on account of the family pension being received by the claimants. 7. The first question to be considered is whether the deduction of Rs. 32,400 being the one-third amount of the loss of support for lump sum payment and other imponderable in life is correct. While computing the loss of support which is likely to extend in this case, for a period of 27 years, the claimants are receiving an advantage be the entire compensation being paid in lump sum. 32,400 being the one-third amount of the loss of support for lump sum payment and other imponderable in life is correct. While computing the loss of support which is likely to extend in this case, for a period of 27 years, the claimants are receiving an advantage be the entire compensation being paid in lump sum. On account of this advantage certain percentage of the compensation has to be deducted. Further there are several uncertainities in life which also will have to be taken into consideration Deduction will have to be made for lump sum payment and uncertainities in life have been approved by the Supreme Court in the case reported in M.P. State Road Transport Corporation Bhopal v. Bairagarth Sudhakar 1977 ACJ 292. The same principle had been adopted by a Division Bench of this Court in the case reported in Md. Director, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation, Madras v. Janardhanam 99 LW 1033. The Supreme Court had deducted one-third amount of the total loss towards lump sum payment and for imponderable in life, where as a Division Bench of this Court had deducted 25 per cent on that account. In the case reported in Dyer Meakin Breweries Ltd. v. Bimla Gupta 1986 ACJ 345 a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court deducted 25 percent on that account. Considering the reasoning in the above judgments the action of the Tribunal in deducting one third from the total loss of support arrived at, towards lump sum payment and other imponderable in life is justified. 8. The next question to be considered is whether the deduction of Rs. 10,000 paid under the Family Benefit Scheme is justifiable. This amount is paid by the Electricity Board on account of the death of the employee. The contention of the learned Counsel for the claimants is that this amount is payable in any event on death and hence the tort-feasor cannot take advantage of the said payment and have the benefit of reduction in the amount of compensation payable. If the Family Benefit Scheme is in the nature of insurance for which the deceased had contributed then the said amount occurs on account of thrift and savings on the part of the deceased and the same is not deductible. On the other hand, if the said amount is paid on death as ex gratia it is deductible from the amount of total compensation. On the other hand, if the said amount is paid on death as ex gratia it is deductible from the amount of total compensation. It is represented by the learned Counsel for the claimants that the deceased had contributed small premium so as to enable him to get the compensation. But there is no evidence in this regard. So in the absence of such evidence the Tribunal is right in deducting a sum of Rs. 10,000 paid under the Family Benefit Scheme. 9. The next question to be considered is whether the Tribunal is justified in deducting a sum of Rs. 13,284 for the pension being received by the claimants. It is in evidence that on the death of the deceased the claimants are receiving a family pension of Rs. 82 per month. The Tribunal taking one half of the pension and capitalising the same arrived at a sum of Rs. 13,284 and deducted the said amount from the compensation payable. The Supreme Court in the case reported in AT. Sivammal v. Pandian Roadways Corporation 1985 ACJ 75 had specifically held that there is no justification for deducting the pension receivable by the legal representatives of the deceased. The pension will have to be received by the dependants irrespective of the accident. Hence, this deduction cannot the justifiable and the said amount of Rs. 13,284 will have to be restored. 10. With reference to the amount viz. Rs. 500 awarded towards pain and suffering, it is contended on behalf of the Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd., that since the death was instantaneous there was no pain and suffering. But in this case, the first appellant, who is the wife of the deceased, is entitled to some amount towards loss of consortium which cannot be disputed. Hence we have no hesitation in awarding a sum of Rs. 500 which has been awarded for the pain and suffering, for loss of consortium. We also confirm the amount awarded towards damage to the cycle viz. Rs. 200. In view of the above reasonings the claimants are entitled to compensation as detailed below- Amount awarded towards loss of support Rs. 92,200 Deduct 1/3 for lump sum payment and other imponderable in life... 32,400 ______ 64,800 Deduct amount paid under the Family Benefit Scheme. 10,000 ______ 54,800 Add the amount awarded towards loss of consortium 500 Add the amount awarded towards damage to the bicycle. 92,200 Deduct 1/3 for lump sum payment and other imponderable in life... 32,400 ______ 64,800 Deduct amount paid under the Family Benefit Scheme. 10,000 ______ 54,800 Add the amount awarded towards loss of consortium 500 Add the amount awarded towards damage to the bicycle. 200 ______ Total compensation Rs. 55,500 11. Under the circumstances, the claimants are entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 55,500 and the same has to be shared equally between the two claimants. The said amount will bear interest at 6 per cent per annum from date of award. In the result C.M.A. 653 of 1980 is dismissed and C.M. A. 718 of 1982 is allowed in part in the above terms. There will be no order as to cost.