JUDGMENT :

VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

1. Present appeal has been filed by the original opponents challenging the judgment and award passed by learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 407 of 2012 dated 31.03.2017, whereby the petition filed by the present respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came to be allowed against them.

2. It is not in dispute that deceased Ashok Harakchand Kauthale, aged 30 years, was serving as Constable in CISF Regional Training Center, Suraksha Campus, Takkolam Arakkonamn, Taq and District Vellore in Tamil Nadu at the time of accident.

3. Original claimants/present respondents had come with a case that Ashok was travelling in Lorry Benz bearing No. TN-23-Q-6374, owned by opponent No. 1, around 6.45 a.m. on 22.06.2011. The said vehicle was proceeding from Thiruttani to Tirupathi. One P.T. Yadav was driving the said Lorry. When the vehicle reached near Panpadi village, in order to avoid people who had suddenly appeared before the Lorry, the driver tried to take the vehicle towards left side by applying brakes; he lost control and then the Lorry turned turtle. Ashok had sustained serious injuries and died on the way to hospital. It was contended that the said accident had taken place due to the sole negligence on the part of Lorry driver. Opponent No. 1 being the owner and opponent No 2 being the employer are liable to pay compensation jointly and severally to the claimants. Claimants are the widow, mother and daughter of deceased. Deceased was earning Rs. 13,000/- p.m. Claimants had claimed compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- with interest.

4. Both the opponents have filed common written statement. It has been stated that Ashok was travelling with more persons, out of them two had lost their lives and others received injuries. Widow of the deceased has received benefits and getting pension. They have offered her job, but she has not responded.

5. Taking into consideration the rival contentions, issues were framed. Only claimants have led oral as well as documentary evidence. After considering said evidence, learned Chairman has allowed the petition. It was held that since the accident was caused due to the negligence of driver of the vehicle owned by opponent No. 1, both the opponents are liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. Compensation of Rs. 21,56,680/- has been awarded inclusive of amount awarded under no-fault liability, together with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of the petition till actual realization of entire amount. This award is under challenge in this appeal.

6. Heard learned Assistant Solicitor General of India Shri. Sanjeev Deshpande for appellants and learned Advocate Shri. G.J. Hiwrale for respondents.

7. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of Assistant Solicitor General that the appeal has been filed only to challenge the quantum awarded by the learned Tribunal. He fairly submitted that the negligence of driver of the vehicle owned by opponent No. 1 was proved by claimants. They are entitled to get compensation; however, learned Tribunal has not considered that widow and the family has received financial benefits. Amount has been given to the family under 7 different heads, which have been narrated in para 4 of the appeal memo. The receipt of these amounts is not denied by the claimants. Appellants have paid amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the claimants as ex-gratia payment under the rules. Therefore, that amount ought to have been deducted by the learned Tribunal from the compensation amount. Further the non-pecuniary damages have been granted on higher side.

8. Learned Assistant Solicitor General has relied on the Office Memorandum regarding implementation of Government's decision on the recommendation of 6th Central Pay Commission-Revision of provisions regulating pension/gratuity/commutation of pension/ family pension/disability pension/ex-gratia lump-sum compensation dated 02.09.2008. It was submitted tha