Mr. A.K. Sikri, C.J.: - These five appeals are placed for the decision of the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge vide orders dated July 23, 2012. The said self-speaking order of the learned Single Judge discloses the necessity of hearing cases by the Division Bench and, therefore, we would like to reproduce that order in its entirety:-

“Out of these bunch cases of five appeals, two have been preferred by claimants seeking enhancement of compensation and others by insurance company impugning the award on the ground that compensation granted is on the higher side. Learned counsel for the parties submit that two coordinate benches of this court have taken two different views in the matter. In the judgment reported as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Santosh & others, [2011(1) Law Herald (Acc.) 387] : 2010 (4) PLR 780, it has been held that the amount of compensation received from the government under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006, would be deducted from the total compensation determined. Operative part of the said judgment being as under:-

“…I would, therefore, take the actual benefit, which obtains to the claimants through the Government scheme and deduct it from the amount, which would become payable if we apply the formula in Sarla Verma that takes due notice of an estimation for future increase and an application of multiplier appropriate to the age. The difference in the amount is the amount of compensation that will become payable.”

In another judgment, however, reported as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Saroj Devi and others, [2012(2) Law Herald (P&H) 982 : 2012(1) Law Herald (Acc.) 247] : 2012 (1) PLR 761, it has been held as follows:-

“I, therefore, hold that financial assistance under the Compassionate Assistance under the Compassionate Assistance Rules and the compensation as assessed under the relevant provisions of Motor Vehicles Act are mutually exclusive and have no reciprocal bearing on the quantum as arrived at under the respective heads. Accordingly, I hold that the Insurance Companies are liable under the terms of their contract with the insured, independent of the financial assistance as received under State compassionate assistance policy, to pay the compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunals under section 166 or 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, except to the extent worked out in accordance with the formulae as detailed herein above.”

It is, thus, evident that in the judgment in Saroj Devi’s case (supra), financial assistance under the policy and the Act has been taken to be mutually exclusive. However, a formula has been adopted for computing compensation in such cases. While counsel for the claimants would urge that ratio of the law laid down in Saroj Devi’s case (supra) should be followed, insurance company wants this court to proceed on the basis of judgment rendered in Santosh & others (supra).

In view of the importance of the question involved and somewhat different views taken by two Single Benches, it appears that matter needs to be settled by reference to a Larger Bench.

Be placed before Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

A photo copy of this order be placed on the files of the connected cases.”

2. What follows from the reading of the aforesaid order is that the question that needs to be determined is: “Whether the compensation received from the government under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (or otherwise) is to be deducted from the total compensation, which is payable to the dependents of the deceased, who dies in an accident, while computing financial benefits through ex-gratia payments by the government. In Smt. Santosh (supra), a learned Single Judge has answered in affirmative, whereas, another single Judge in Saroj Devi (supra) has taken a contrary view. It would, therefore, be apposite to go into the