RAJESH TANDON, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and the award dated 3. 9. 2004 passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Champawat. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present appeal are that appellants filed a claim petition before Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Champawat for grant of compensation on account of the death of Khimram in a motor vehicle accident on 8. 11. 2002 near village Gallagaon on Barakot-Lohaghat road. Appellants-petitioners submitted that Khimram boarded vehicle No. UA-03 1106 at Barakot for going to Lohaghat. The vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently due to which it met with accident near Gallagaon. Khimram sustained fatal injuries in the accident and he succumbed at the spot. The deceased was employed in p. W. D. Lohaghat as gangman and was getting Rs. 5,000 per month as salary. ( 3 ) THE claim petition was contested by the respondents. The respondents have filed their respective written statements. Respondent No. 1 denied that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle. Respondent No. 2 submitted that the driver and the owner of the vehicle flouted the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as such the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. ( 4 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, as many as five issues were framed by the claims Tribunal. The issue No. 1 was with regard to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle and it was held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the jeep. Issue No. 2 was framed regarding valid driving licence and issue No. 3 was framed regarding valid insurance of the jeep which met with accident and both these issues were answered in affirmative and it was held that the driver of the jeep had valid driving licence and the jeep was insured with the respondent No. 2. Issue no. 4 was framed regarding the amount of compensation and issue No. 5 was with regard to violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The Claims tribunal has held that terms and conditions of the insurance policy were not flouted. Issue no. 4 was framed regarding the amount of compensation and issue No. 5 was with regard to violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The Claims tribunal has held that terms and conditions of the insurance policy were not flouted. For calculating the amount of compensation the Claims Tribunal has taken the basic pay of the deceased and after multiplying the annual loss with 16 awarded a sum of rs. 3,87,840 as compensation. Further an amount of Rs. 2,000 was granted for funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000 were granted for loss of love and affection and loss of consortium. Thus the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,94,840 as compensation to claimants. Feeling aggrieved the present appeal has been filed by the claimants. ( 5 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. ( 6 ) THE present appeal has been filed for enhancement of the amount of award. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Claims Tribunal was not justified in taking the amount of basic pay only for calculating the pecuniary loss, while other allowances ought to have been taken for calculating the amount of pecuniary loss. ( 7 ) IN the accident claimants had lost the life of the only bread-earner of the family, therefore, the amount which the deceased was getting during his lifetime to earn the livelihood of his family must be taken for calculating the amount of compensation. The Claims Tribunal was not justified to deduct the amount of dearness allowance from the monthly salary of the deceased. ( 8 ) THE Apex Court in the case of Kapil Hingorani v. State of Bihar, 2003 (7) AIC 18 (SC), observed as under: "the term 'life' in India has a wide and far-reaching concept. It includes livelihood and so many other facets thereof. 'life', as observed by Field, J. in Munn v. Illinois, means something more than mere animal existence and the inhabitation against the deprivation of life extends to all those limits and faculties by which life is enjoyed. [see Board of trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dalip kumar; Raghavendranath Nadkarni and olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1983) 1 SCC 124]. [see Board of trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dalip kumar; Raghavendranath Nadkarni and olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1983) 1 SCC 124]. " ( 9 ) IN the case of Management of Shri chaltan Vibagh Khand Udyog Sahakari mandi v. G. S. Barat, AIR 1980 SC 31, the Supreme Court clarified the object and purpose of grant of dearness allowance. It has been held as under: "the purpose of grant of dearness allowance is to neutralise the increase in the cost of living due to raise in prices. Neutralisation may be such as to neutralise fully the increase in the cost of living or may be restricted to neutralise only a portion of the increase. Full or cent per cent neutralisation can be achieved if the increase in the cost of living is not fully compensated so that the pay of the worker is not adversely affected. But an award of more than 100 per cent of an increase in the cost of living would be more than neutralisation and would, in effect, give the worker an increased wage. " ( 10 ) APART from the dearness allowance being part of the salary we are of the opinion that it cannot be deducted from the salary. It is well-established that the Motor vehicles Act is a purposive legislation, the intention being to compensate the loss on account of the death of the bread-earner any deduction made in the dearness allowance against the constitutional obligation contained under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. ( 11 ) IN State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur, 2003 ACJ 1800 (SC), reliance has been placed on the judgment of Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Trans. Corpn. , 1999 ACJ 10 (SC), regarding 'just compensation'. The observations of the hon'ble Supreme Court are as under: "though by the use of the expression 'which appears to it to be just' a wide discretion is vested on the Tribunal the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses, and arbitrariness. The expression 'just' denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness and non-arbitrary. It is not so it cannot be just. " ( 12 ) THE claimants have filed paper No. 21-C, salary certificate issued by the executive Engineer, Construction Division, p. W. D. , Lohaghat. The expression 'just' denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness and non-arbitrary. It is not so it cannot be just. " ( 12 ) THE claimants have filed paper No. 21-C, salary certificate issued by the executive Engineer, Construction Division, p. W. D. , Lohaghat. In that certificate the date of birth of the deceased has been mentioned as 14/6/1969, meaning thereby that at the time of accident deceased Khimram was 33 years old. The details of salary have been given in the certificate as under: Pay Rs . 3,030 D. A. Rs . 1,576 House rent Rs . 125 Border allowance Rs . 225 ( 13 ) AFTER excluding the house rent and border allowance from his pay, net amount comes to Rs. 4,606 and this amount can be taken for calculating the pecuniary loss after deducting 1/3rd of the same for own expenses of the deceased, if he would have been alive. Thus the annual pecuniary loss sustained by claimants come to Rs. 4,606- (Rs. 4,606 x 1/3) x 12 = Rs. 36,852. Considering the age of deceased a multiplier of 17 should have been taken and thus the compensation comes to Rs. 36,852 x 17 =rs. 6,26,484. Besides this amount the claimants are also entitled to get Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000 for loss of love and affection and loss of consortium. Thus the petitioners are entitled to get a sum of Rs. 6,33,484 as compensation, which we round up to Rs. 6,34,000. ( 14 ) IN the result, we are modifying the award holding the appellants entitled to a compensation of Rs. 6,34,000 with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. Out of total amount of compensation half of the amount be paid to petitioner No. 1 widow of the deceased in cash, while half of the amount shall be equally distributed amongst the rest of the petitioners. The amount of the share of minors shall be deposited in individual fixed deposit accounts in the names of minors, in some nationalised bank till the period each of them attains the age of majority. ( 15 ) ACCORDINGLY the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed. --- *** ---