JUDGMENT

1st June, 2023 B.P. Routray, J.

1. Both the appeals, one (MACA No.524 of 2019) filed by the claimants and the other (MACA No.613 of 2019) filed by the insurance company, are against the same impugned award and as such are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The claimants, who are the wife and children of the deceased namely Bishnu Charan Dandasena have filed MAC Case No.831 of 2016/221 of 2017 for death of the deceased in a motor vehicular accident dated 26th October 2015. Their case is that while the deceased was going to office in his Activa scooter, the offending truck bearing registration number AP-35-X-8799 coming from behind in rash and negligent manner dashed him causing his death. The deceased was serving as the Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Sambalpur. The tribunal upon adjudication directed for payment of compensation of Rs.83,46,479/- along with interest @ 6% per annum for the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 7th December, 2016 in favour of the claimants.

Signature Not Verified MACA Nos.613 & 524 of 2019 Page 2 of 9 Digitally Signed

3. The involvement of the offending truck and negligence on the part of its driver are though not disputed before this court, but the challenges are mainly on the quantum of compensation. The claimants have prayed for enhancement of the same whereas the insurer has prayed to reduce it. According to the insurer, the daughter of the deceased is now receiving Rs.23,700/- per month from rehabilitation appointment and the widow is getting family pension of Rs.35,000/- per month and therefore, such amounts received by the claimants are liable to be adjusted from the loss of dependency to disentitle them from getting benefits of future prospects. On the other hand the claimants are urging against deduction of Rs.20,00,000/- received by them towards Group Personal Accident Policy. As per the claimants such amount received from the employer of the deceased is not liable for deduction.

4. The deceased was 59 years old on the date of death and the tribunal determined his annual income at Rs.18,51,190/- taking into account the income mentioned in Form-16 for the Financial Year 2015- 16. No dispute is raised with regard to income of the deceased. As stated earlier, the entire dispute is on deduction of such amount Signature Not Verified MACA Nos.613 & 524 of 2019 Page 3 of 9 Digitally Signed

received towards Group Personal Accident Policy and addition of future prospect.

5. First dealing with the contentions raised by the Insurance Company that, future prospect is not liable to be added to the income of the deceased, the same are found without substance. What is submitted by the insurer that family pension amount as well as salary received from rehabilitation employment by the widow and daughter respectively would deprive them from the benefits of addition of future prospect is an inconceivable argument. There is no merit in this submission. This would not disentitle them from getting the benefits of future prospects. Similarly, the submissions made by the claimants against deduction of Rs.20,00,000/- are also meritless. Admittedly, a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was paid to the widow of the deceased towards Group Personal Accident Policy. The insurer examined O.P.W.1, the Administrative Officer of LIC of India at Sambalpur, and produced the document (Ext.B) in this regard, which is not disputed by the claimants. Said O.P.W.1 has stated that the premium for the policy is not paid or deducted from the salary of the concerned employee.

6. The position of law to answer the contentions of both parties would be clear from following discussions.

Signature Not Verified MACA Nos.613 & 524 of 2019 Page 4 of 9 Digitally Signed

It has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Helen C.

Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC, (1999) 1 SCC 90 that, family pension is all by the employee for the benefit of the family in the form of his contribution in terms of service conditions and heirs rece