S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals, one by the owner of the motor vehicle and the other by one of the claimants, are under S. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short 'the Act' ). The extent of liability of the insurer being the common question involved in both the cases and the cause of action being the same, they are heard together and are disposed of by this judgement. ( 2 ) ON 19-5-1979, the minibus bearing registration No. OSC 1899 was going from Khurda side to Balugaon side with passengers. On the way near Kimbhiripada it dashed against a trolly rickshaw from behind resulting in the death of the rickshaw puller as well as two passengers, namely, Narasingh Sahu and Kelu Senapati. Narsingh Sahu was a process server of the Civil Court. Kelu Senapati was a grocery dealer. The legal representatives of Narasingh and Kelu filed applications under S. 110-A of the Act for compensation against the owner and the insurer. ( 3 ) ON perusal of the materials on record, the Tribunal held that there was negligent driving of the vehicle as a result of which the accident occurred causing fatal injuries to both the passengers. Although the Tribunal found that the dependants of Narsingh, the deceased process server, were receiving Rs. 160/- per month from Narsingh Sahu, no compensation was awarded on account of the fact that his widow was receiving Rs. 135/- per month towards family pension. Compensation was awarded to the dependants of Kelu Senapati. They are satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded and have not preferred any appeal. ( 4 ) THE owner has preferred the appeal bearing M. A. No. 13 of 1983 wherein he has challenged the finding regarding negligent driving as well as personal liability fixed on him limiting the insurer's liability to Rs. 5,000/- only. Legal representatives of Narasingh Sahu have assailed the award refusing compensation to them. ( 5 ) ON the facts the following questions require answer : (A) Whether there was negligence of the driver resulting in death of the two passengers ? (b) Whether receipt of family pension is sufficient to deny compensation to the dependant-claimants ? and (c) What is the liability of the insurer ? ( 5 ) ON the facts the following questions require answer : (A) Whether there was negligence of the driver resulting in death of the two passengers ? (b) Whether receipt of family pension is sufficient to deny compensation to the dependant-claimants ? and (c) What is the liability of the insurer ? ( 6 ) THE fact that the vehicle dashed against the trolly rickshaw resulting in the death of two of the passengers in the vehicle itself speaks of negligent driving. The owner cannot be absolved from the vicarious liability on that account. ( 7 ) NOW coming to the claim of the dependants of deceased Narasingh, the process server, his monthly contribution of Rs. 160/- as found by the Tribunal is cogent and reasonable. The Tribunal has calculated that the dependants are deprived of Rs. 46,080/- which they would have received as contribution of the deceased. Mr. B. P. Tripathy, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the refusal of the Tribunal to award any compensation on account of the fact that the claimants were getting the family pension of Rs. 135/- per month is not reasonable. Mr. Tripathy has relied upon a decision of this Court reported in 1977 ACJ 196, Jagannath Sinha v. Khirodini which in turn relied upon a decision of the Delhi High Court reported in 1975 ACJ 56 , Bhagwati Devi v. Ish Kumar. In that case accepting the decision of the Delhi High Court it was held that pension is not to be excluded for the purpose of determining the just compensation on the ground that pension in those cases was on account of deferred wages. In case I find that family pension is deferred wages the decision of this Court would be binding on me. If the same would not be deferred wages, the decision of this Court is to be confined to the facts and circumstances of that case. ( 8 ) FAMILY pension to dependants of a Government employee is a condition of service. The same is not a natural right. Unlike contributory provident fund, no contribution is made for the family pension by an employee. The employee gets his full pay as prescribed in the scale. Family pension, therefore, cannot be termed as deferred wages under the Orissa Liberalised Pension Rules amended from time to time. The same is not a natural right. Unlike contributory provident fund, no contribution is made for the family pension by an employee. The employee gets his full pay as prescribed in the scale. Family pension, therefore, cannot be termed as deferred wages under the Orissa Liberalised Pension Rules amended from time to time. The rules under which pension was treated to be deferred wage by this Court in 1977 ACJ 196 (supra) are not reproduced. Accordingly, the said decision does not lay down any principle to be binding on me. ( 9 ) IN AIR 1962 SC 1 , (Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. Veluswami), it has been observed that the amount of loss to the claimants on account of death and the amount received by them on account of the death are to be calculated to determine the just compensation. In case the process server would not have faced the fatal accident, there was no scope for the claimants to get the family pension. No payment is made either by the deceased employee or the dependants for the purpose of family pension as in the case of life insurance premium and other similar receipts. Family pension has, thus, to be distinguished from life insurance for which premium is paid. The Tribunal has rightly held that the amount of family pension is to be deducted for the purpose of determining the just compensation. ( 10 ) HOWEVER, while determining the compensation, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the fact that family pension is reducible after certain period. Mr. Tripathy has rightly submitted that the pay scales of Government servants are increasing and the slab in the pension is also increasing by the benevolency of the State Government towards its employees. The Tribunal ought to have considered this aspect. In the circumstance, two alternatives are open to me, either to remit the matter back for fresh enquiry or to make a reasonable guess work and determine the compensation so that the claimants get the same early without further suffering keeping in mind the fact that the accident took place in the year 1979. I have preferred to make a reasonable guess work. The claimants would have got every month Rs. 25/- more or annually Rs. 300/- if the process server would have continued in service. I have preferred to make a reasonable guess work. The claimants would have got every month Rs. 25/- more or annually Rs. 300/- if the process server would have continued in service. In the year 1984, the pay scale has been enhanced and the pension has also been enhanced of which I can take judicial notice. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the just compensation in this case would be Rs. 20,000/- for the claimants. The amount being too small in quantum, there would be no deduction from out of the same on account of lump sum payment or future uncertainties. ( 11 ) THE next question is the liability of the insurer which is created under S. 95 and also by agreement of parties not inconsistent with the statute. I find from the policy that additional premium has been taken by the insurer for enhanced liability beyond the statutory liability as provided in I. M. T. 13 (A) attached to the policy. Mr. P. Roy, the learned counsel for the insurer, submitted that I. M. T. 13 (A) is only a clarification of the statutory liability and is not an addition to the same. The liability under S. 95 is so clear that it requires no explanation or clarification by charging additional premium for the same. Rs. 210/- has been charged for the purpose of enhanced liability at the rate of Rs. 6/- per passenger under I. M. T. 13 (A) which provides as under :"legal liability to passengers excluding liability for Accidents to employees of the Insured arising out of and in the course of their employment. In consideration of an additional premium of Rs. 6/- and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in S. 11-I (c) but subject otherwise to the terms exceptions, conditions, and limitations of this Policy the Company will indeminfy the Insured against liability at Law for compensation (including Law Costs of any claimant) for death of or bodily injury to any person other than a person excluded under S. 11-1 (b) being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the Motor Vehicle but such indemnity is limited to the sum of Rs. 50,000/- in respect of any one person and subject to the aforesaid limit in respect of any one person to Rs. 50,000/- in respect of any one person and subject to the aforesaid limit in respect of any one person to Rs. 5,000/- in respect of any number of claims in connection with the Motor Vehicle arising out of one cause. Provided always that in the event of an accident occurring whilst the Motor Vehicle is carrying more than the number of persons mentioned in the schedule hereto as being the licensed carrying capacity of that vehicle in addition to the conductor if any then the Insured shall repay to the Company a rateable proportion of the total amount which would be payable by the Company by reason of this endorsement if not more than the said number of persons were carried in the Motor Vehicle. Provided further that in computing the number of persons for the purpose of this endorsement any three children not exceeding 15 years of age will be reckoned as two persons and any children in arms not exceeding 3 years of age will be disregarded. Provided also that the provisions of Condition 3 of the Policy are also applicable to a claim or series of claims under this endorsement. Provided further that in the event of the Policy being cancelled at the request of the Insured no refund of premium paid in respect of this endorsement will be allowed. Subject otherwise to the terms exceptions conditions and limitations of this Policy. "since the dependants of deceased Kelu Senapati have been awarded a sum of Rs. 38,400/- and I have awarded Rs. 20,000/- to the claimants of deceased Narsingh Sahu, the total liability of the insurer comes to Rs. 58,400/- which is well within the insured amount both statutory and I. M. T. 13 (A ). Accordingly, the insurer is liable to pay the entire amount to claimants in both the cases. ( 12 ) IN the result, both the appeals are allowed in part. Since the awarded amount has not been paid as yet, the amount of interest will be 9% per annum from the date of claim till the date of payment. The insurer is directed to settle the claim within three months from today Parties shall bear their own costs throughout. Appeals partly allowed.