JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

1. Union of India and Commanding Officer, 104 Engineer Regiment are in appeal against the award dated 21st January, 2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu in Claim file No. 475/Claim titled Anima Rani and Das others v. R.B. Patil and others, whereby respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (hereinafter 'the claimants') have been held entitled to compensation of Rs. 18,73,500 along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of death of one Sh. Subal Dass.

2. The impugned award has been primarily assailed on quantum. It is submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and excessive.

3. The claimants have also filed cross-objections/appeal seeking enhancement, inter alia, on the following grounds:-

(i) That the applicable multiplier in the instant case is 15 but the Tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of 12.

(ii) Certain allowances i.e. ration, uniform, accommodation, medi-care etc have not been taken into consideration while assessing the income of the deceased.

(iii) No compensation for loss of estate and love and affection has been granted.

(iv) The effect of implementation of 6th pay commission report has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal.

(v) The amounts awarded under conventional heads are also on lower side.

4. Relying upon few judgments of the Supreme Court, learned ASGI submits that several payments received by the claimants from the appellants on account of death of Sub. Subal Dass, particularly, Rs. 5,00,000.00 relating to Central govt. ex-gratia payment, were liable to be deducted from the loss of income/dependency to the claimants. The Tribunal having failed to deduct the payments made on account of ex-gratia to the claimants has, thus, conferred double benefit on the claimants.

5. Per contra, Mr. R.K. Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (claimants), placing reliance on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sebastiani Lakra and others v. National Insurance Company Limited and another, AIR 2018 SC 5034, urges that the payments and service benefits including ex-gratia payment made to the dependents/legal heirs of the deceased employee, cannot be deducted from computation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, unless such payment/payments have co-relation with the motor accident. Learned counsel argues that all these payments, to which reference has been made by the appellants in the memo of appeal, are otherwise payable to the dependents of the deceased employee irrespective of the cause of death. He further submits that no such claim was made by the appellants before the Tribunal nor any policy, statutory or otherwise pertaining to the payment of ex-gratia relief, was brought on record by the appellant and it is because of this reason, the Tribunal did not frame any specific issue in this regard.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of view that so for as the plea of the appellants that the ex-gratia payment of Rs. 5,00,000/-, which was received by the claimants on account of untimely death of the deceased should have been deducted from the loss of income/dependency of the claimants is without substance for the reasons given hereinafter.

7. There are two, seemingly, contradictory three-Judge Bench judgments, one rendered in the case of Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Shashi Sharma and others, 2016 (9) SCC 627 and the other in the case of Sebastiani Lakra (supra). In the later three-Judge Bench judgment in the case of Sebastiani Lakra, the judgment rendered in the case of Shashi Sharma (supra) has been explained and distinguished. In Shashi Sharma's case, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court while hearing a reference also considered incidental question as to whether there was any conflict of opinion between the Coordi