The court clarified the treatment of family pension, gratuity, provident fund, and group insurance in determining compensation for the heirs of a victim of a motor accident.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the State of U. P. challenging the award of the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal in which one of the employees of the State itself was killed in a motor accident. It is alleged that on 30th May, 1986 the deceased Bishan Singh, forester, along with some official of the department was deputed on official duty and in that connection they were travelling in a departmental jeep No. UPH 6471. When the jeep reached unmanned railway crossing at Indra nagar, Haldwani, it dashed against a running train as a result of which Bishan Singh, forester, died. The widow, son and the daughter of the said deceased filed claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 claiming a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of compensation.

( 2 ) THE State of U. P. contested the petition and it was contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep. The State also disputed the amount of compensation claimed as being excessive. It was alleged that the family pension was being granted to the widow and the gratuity, provident fund and group insurance also have been paid to them and for that reason the compensation as claimed was highly excessive.

( 3 ) HAVING gone through the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal we are satisfied that the findings regarding negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not call for any interference by this court. In any case nothing has been pointed out prima facie for us to take a different view at this stage.

( 4 ) THE learned Chief Standing Counsel, however, mainly urged that the amount of compensation which has been awarded, i. e. , Rs. 30,000/- is excessive inasmuch as the family pension being given to the widow has not been taken into account and there are certain other benefits which were also being given to the claimants much before the due dates and this fact should have been taken into account while awarding compensation. Lastly, it was urged that a sum of Rs. 15,000/-was paid to the claimants under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the same has not been adjusted.

( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned Chief Standing Counsel we do not think that any amount paid to the widow by way of family pension, gratuity and other benefits accruing on account of the death of the deceased ought to be adjusted or any deduction on that account be made from the amount of compensation. Death of the husband in any accident or otherwise is immaterial as the widow is, in any case, entitled to receive the family pension as of right on the death of her husband, a State government employee. As to the gratuity, insurance and provident fund, law is now fairly well settled that these amounts are not to be considered while determining compensation to the heirs of a victim of motor accident. We, therefore, cannot accept the submission made by the learned chief Standing Counsel in this behalf.

( 6 ) SO far as the amount of Rs. 15,000/- alleged to have been paid to the claimants under the interim award is concerned that amount certainly needed to be deducted and should have been adjusted in final determination of the compensation. We find from the award that this amount has not been adjusted anywhere. There is, however, no proof on the record to suggest that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- has in fact been awarded to the claimants and paid to them. However, in case any such amount has been awarded or paid to the claimants the same will be subject to deduction from the amount of compensation determined by the Claims Tribunal.

( 7 ) WITH these observations we dispose of the appeal finally at the admission stage itself.

.