DESHPANDE J.- 7. The principal contention of Mr. Dwivedee is that the amount of Rs. 15,000 admitted to have been received by the widow, towards the Life Insurance policy is liable to be deducted from the above amount of Rs. 55,200. This, according to him, is the pecuniary advantage received by the claimants by reason of the death in terms of the ratio of Gobald Motor Services Ltd. v. R. M. K. Veluswami1 It is nobody's case that it was an accident policy entitling the claimants to such amount, on the death of the deceased only in such an accident, and the amount could not have been received by them, had the death been due to otherwise, than such an accident. We express no opinion if this could have made any difference as there is no unanimity in the decided cases as to the liability of even such amounts to deduction from compensation. Judicial opinion is also sharply divided en the question whether life policy amount can be said to have come to the claimants by reason of the death of the deceased to justify its deduction from the amount of compensation payable to the claimants towards their pecuniary loss. Our attention was drawn by Mr. Zaveri, the learned advocate for the respondents, to a few judgments, of High Court of Gujarat in L. I. C. of India v. Legal representatives of deceased Naranbhai Munjabhai2. High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Sood and Company v. Surjit Kaur3, as also Delhi High Court in Bhagwanti Devi v. Ish Kumar4 and several other judgments of same High Courts, which do support his contention that amounts so received are not liable to be deducted as the same cannot be said to have come to the claimants by reason of the death of the deceased. Mr. Dwivedi, on the other hand, drew our attention to the judgments reported in Union of India v. S. Ghosh5, Sushila Devi v. Ibrahim6, Sabita Pati v. Rameshwar Singh7 Orissa High Court and Automobiles Transport v. Dewalal8, and a few other judgments of the same Courts taking the contrary view. We may at once observe that Patna High Court supports deduction only of such policy amounts as are subscribed to meet accident contingency and not other policy amounts. It rather supports Mr. Zaveri's contention and not that of Mr. Dwivedce. Mr. Zaveri also drew our attention to some other judgments of Delhi High Court, including in the case of Orissa Road Transport Co. Ltd. Y. Sibananda Pattanaik9, which justify deduction only of a portion and not of the entire policy amounts.

8. The answer turns really on whether such policy amount can be said to be "pecuniary advantages" that come to the claimants "by reason of the death of the deceased"? That such amounts amount to pecuniary advantage admits of little doubt. Controversy really centres round if it comes to the dependants "by reason of death". Reading of the decided cases only go to show how this very question can arise under variety of circumstances giving rise to different considerations, pregnant with equally different legal implication, and it is by no means easy to lay down any inflexible rule as to which pecuniary benefit can be said to have been received "by reason of the death." It is pertinent to note that in the absence of any provision to the contrary, such policy amounts form part of the estate of the deceased and come to his heirs or dependants by way of inheritance, unless it is sought to be disposed of by the deceased otherwise. Nominee mentioned therein is not necessarily the beneficiary but invariably happens to be merely an authorised Collector thereof for the benefit of all heirs. We are unable to see any difference between this amount, and any other income yielding estate, that comes to the dependants either by way of inheritance or pursuant to any will or settlement. The causal connection between receipt of such amounts, and death is too apparent and both really stand on the same footing legally. Donations by the charitable trusts, or provisions for such dependants by some public spirited institution