S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. whether the actual receipt of insurance, provident fund, pension, or gratuity benefits by the dependants of a victim of an automobile accident must be taken into consideration for fixing a suitable multiplier in their claims of compensation under Sec.110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, is the significant question in this reference to the Full Bench.

2. At the very threshold one must dutifully notice that herein there is undoubtedly a sharp cleavage of judicial opinion. There are two distinct and rival schools of thought. On one side is the somewhat liberal view that insurance, provident fund, pension or gratuity are the products of the employee s service or his thrift. Their true character is such that it was never intended nor is it just that a tortfeasor should take over the benefit of these by getting a credit for them in mitigation of the damages that he must pay. They are the deferred returns of a man s thrift, prudence and foresight which are the true source of these benefits to his dependants and not the accident as such. Arrayed on the other side is the stricter view that damages are not to be punitive, that the claimant s actual financial loss t