JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, J. - The widow, minor children - son and daughter, and mother of one Madhab Chandra Bastia who died in an accident on 27-4-1978 while proceeding on the Cuttack-Paradeep road at Tatalapada due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration number OSC 409/65 are the appellants against a decision of the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack, determining Rs. 20,000/- as compensation payable to them. 2. Madhab Chandra Bastia was a constable and was proceeding on the fateful day towards Kisannagar on the left side of the road. The vehicle is alleged to have come at a high speed and run over him. Madhab died at the spot. The widow, minor children and the mother claimed Rs. 49,000/-as compensation. The owner did not contest but the insurer did and refuted the allegations and did not adduce any evidence. The claimants adduced evidence by examining three witnesses and proving the Service Book of Shri Bastia. No evidence was placed on behalf of the owner and the insurer, not even the driver who could have thrown light as to how the accident took place, was examined. 3. The tribunal held that the accident came about due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. On the question of compensation, it held that Shri Bastia was receiving Rs. 400/- as salary per month and taking into account the family pension of Rs. 126/- that the widow received, the financial loss to the members of the family was Rs. 100/- and calculating on that basis and deducting l/6th for lump sum payment, it assessed the compensation payable at Rs. 20,000/-. 4. To say the least, the determination of compensation has been excessively low. The tribunal did not take into account that pay scales of Government employees are undergoing revision upwards from time to time and at present a constable is receiving about Rs. 1000/- as salary per month. Revisions in future are more probably. Therefore, quantification with reference to Rs. 400/- whicn Shri Bastia was receiving at the time of his death was illogical and unreasonable. Shri Bastia died at the age of 38. He had 20 more years to serve. He would have enjoyed pension for some years. Taking all these aspects into consideration, I assess the average income of Shri Bastia at Rs. 400/- whicn Shri Bastia was receiving at the time of his death was illogical and unreasonable. Shri Bastia died at the age of 38. He had 20 more years to serve. He would have enjoyed pension for some years. Taking all these aspects into consideration, I assess the average income of Shri Bastia at Rs. 500/- out of which the dependency of the members of his family, i.e., financial contribution of Shri Bastia to the family, would not be less than Rs. 350/- per month. It should not be forgotten that Shri Bastia out of his income would have given education to his children and given the daughter in marriage besides maintaining all the four of them. Having ascertained the monthly dependency of the family, what should be the multiplier to determine the total dependency ? On the facts and in the circumstances and taking into consideration the uncertainties of life and the fact that the claimants should receive a lumpsum which can be properly and prudently invested so as to receive a return, I am of the view that 12 years purchase would be just and reasonable. So calculated, the total compensation payable comes to Rs 350 x 12 x 12=Rs. 50,400/-. 5. Having ascertained the dependency, the tribunal deducted therefore the family pension received by the widow and also deducted l/6th for lumpsum payment. I have taken into account the later factor while fixing the multiplier as 12 The question is was the tribunal justified in taking into account the family pension and the gratuity received by the widow from the employer of Shri Bastia. A catena of decisions were cited at the Bar. I need only refer to a few which are well discussed and appeal to me. 6. I begin with two Full Bench decisions of the Punjab & Haryana and Madhya Pradesh High Courts. In Smt. Kashmiran Mathur and Others Vs. Sardar Rajendra Singh and Another, in paragraph 23, Shukla, J. observed: ...Provident Fund constituted the amount which the deceased had himself deposited out of his salary 'for the rainy day'. This amount was payable to him and the family would have taken the benefit of this amount even if the deceased were to be alive. This amount was not an advantage 'by reason of his death'. This sum was, therefore, not deductible from compensation. This amount was payable to him and the family would have taken the benefit of this amount even if the deceased were to be alive. This amount was not an advantage 'by reason of his death'. This sum was, therefore, not deductible from compensation. On gratuity, he observed: ...Payment of gratuity was not necessarily consequential to his death but was otherwise also payable to him. The amount of gratuity paid to the widow could not be deducted. In paragraph-25, the question of deduction of family pension was considered. It was observed: ...Unless proper material is placed before the tribunal about the nature and incident of such pension, which in the present case was not done, no rule can be laid down about deduction or otherwise of such amount which is paid to the dependent of a deceased employee. Secondly assuming that such a pension is non-contributory, i.e., paid by the employer on his own, a deduction can be made only if the Tribunal has included all the probable benefits available to the deceased in his full span of life while determining the amount of compensation. For example if the Tribunal has taken into consideration the amount of pension payable to the deceased on his retirement and the contribution to be made by him for the benefit of his wife and children for the entire remainder of his life, then the amount of family pension may be reasonably deducted. Where, however, the tribunal has not considered such benefits, i.e., probable increments to the deceased in salary and dearness allowance, prospects of his possibility of useful exployment after retirement, as in the instant case deduction on account of family pension paid to the widow and other dependents cannot be made. In the instant case, therefore, we hold that the family pension paid to the widow and the legal representatives of the deceased was not deductible. The other two judges in concurring observed: ...After ascertaining the annual dependency, the multiplier selected is not equal to the reminder of the working life of the deceased. It is much less taking into account the uncertainties of life. The other two judges in concurring observed: ...After ascertaining the annual dependency, the multiplier selected is not equal to the reminder of the working life of the deceased. It is much less taking into account the uncertainties of life. Under these circumstances, it can be held that the selection of multiplier normally takes care of the acceleration of the interest of the claimants in the benefits, which they have received on death of the deceased, unless in any particular case, material is brought on record to show that the acceleration of interest of the claimants is not taken care of in selecting the multiplier in that case. The burden to prove this fact would be on the defendant and in the absence of any material on record, it must be held that no deduction on account of acceleration of interest of the claimants is necessary. The Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Bhagat Singh and Sohan Singh Vs. Om Sharma and Others, after an exhaustive consideration of the decisions of various High Courts in India and of foreign courts observed: ...the receipt of insurance, provident fund, pension or gratuity benefits by the dependants of the victim of an automobile accident must be altogether excluded from consideration in the award of compensation to them u/s 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act. The logic for the observation was that the intrinsic nature of benefits like the provident fund, family pension or gratuity was that they were the deferred fruits of satisfactory service, industry, thrift, contributions and foresight of the employee. Those might be the necessary incidents of statutory service rules, employment contracts or beneficient legislation rooted in the employment of the deceased. To attribute these payments entirely to the fortuitous circumstance of the accident and the resultant death, appeared to be untenable. In Smt. Radha Agarwal and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court observed: ...The family pension awarded to the claimants could not be deducted from the amount of compensation as the pecuniary benefits would have been earned by the deceased if he had remained alive. It is not permissible to deduct the amount of insurance policy, gratuity or provident fund.... Khanna, J. in Surender Kaur and Others Vs. It is not permissible to deduct the amount of insurance policy, gratuity or provident fund.... Khanna, J. in Surender Kaur and Others Vs. Dhram Singh and Another, held: ...there was no justification for the Tribunal to have allowed deductions towards provident fund, gratuity, pension and other savings of the deceased which the legal representatives got after his death. They had come as a result of his service career and by dint of his own efforts and service put in. None of them could be attributed as compensation for causing his death by rash and negligent driving.... In Fateh Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P., the court was aversed to deduct the amount of insurance and pension from the amount of compensation. 7. I am not unaware of certain decisions including some of this Court where deductions have been made (see for example Orissa Road Transport Co. Ltd. Vs. Sibananda Patnaik and Others. But that case is distinguishable. There, the total dependency was computed taking into account the contribution that the deceased would have made to the family during the entire period of service which he did not live to serve and deduction there from was made on account of advantages received by the claimants by reason of death of the deceased. I have adopted here the other principle, namely, assessment of dependency by multiplying the annual dependency with the years of purchase according to the guide line furnished in the actuarial table cited in the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad Vs. Shafiya Khatoon and Others. The multiplier being much less than the total years of service that the deceased would have served for had he lived, that takes care of the deduction permissible to be made under the law. Therefore, no further deduction is permissible. 8. The bread-earner has been snatched away by an act of the tort-feasor. No amount of compensation can be substitute. What can compensate a tremendous emotional loss that the family would suffer ? The widow lost her husband at the age of 26, in the prime of his youth. Widow remarriage is not in vogue in our society and is few and far between. She has to live rest of her life without her friend, philosopher and guide. What can compensate a tremendous emotional loss that the family would suffer ? The widow lost her husband at the age of 26, in the prime of his youth. Widow remarriage is not in vogue in our society and is few and far between. She has to live rest of her life without her friend, philosopher and guide. The mother lost her son whom she looked up to for help and assistance, love and affection during old age. What amount of money can compensate the loss to the minor children. Father is no more to shape their destiny. I am, therefore, of the view that having applied the multiplier which is less than the number of years Shri Bastia would have served and being conscious of the fact that the approach of the Tribunal should be guided by human considerations, no further deduction should be made from considerations, no further deduction should be made from the loss of dependency quantified at Rs. 50,400/-. Inasmuch as the claimants made a modest claim of Rs. 49,000/-, their claims should be allowed in to with interest at the rate of 10 per cent from 19-6-78, the date of application. The amount of compensation is, therefore, determined at Rs. 49,000/- with interest at the rate of 10 per cent. The amount shall be deposited by the insurer within three months from today, failing which interest at the rate of 18 per cent shall be payable. 9. Out of the total amount, i.e., compensation with interest, deposited by the insurer, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid to Nisamani Bewa, the mother of the deceased. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- shall be deposited in fixed deposit for 10 years in the name of Shri Manoj Kumar Bastia, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- shall be deposited in fixed deposit in the name of Gayatri Bastia for 5 years, a sum of Rs 10,000/- in the name of Santilata Bastia for 10 years and the balance shall be paid to her. The deposits be made in any nationalised bank. The tribunal should issue instruction to the Bank that the amount deposited in Fixed Deposit accounts in the names of the claimants should not be allowed to be withdrawn, encased or pledged before expiry of the period of deposit without permission of the tribunal. 10. With the aforesaid directions, I allow this appeal, with costs. The tribunal should issue instruction to the Bank that the amount deposited in Fixed Deposit accounts in the names of the claimants should not be allowed to be withdrawn, encased or pledged before expiry of the period of deposit without permission of the tribunal. 10. With the aforesaid directions, I allow this appeal, with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 250/-.