JUDGMENT : J.K. Maheshwari, J. Both these appeals are arising out of the same award dated 5th August, 2011, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alirajpur in Claim Case No. 47/2010. M.A. No. 2605/2011 has been filed by the claimants assailing the deduction of ex gratia of Rs. 7,00,000 paid by the Bank to the family members of the deceased while M.A. No. 2270/2011 has been filed by the Insurance Company on the ground of false implication of vehicle as well as the award of compensation of ex gratia. 2. It is not in dispute that Ramprasad Pandey, going on a motorcycle has been died in a road accident took place on 19th February, 2010. In the claim petition it is alleged that when the deceased was going on his motorcycle along with Amit Dubey, the jeep bearing No. GH-6-A-4620 driven rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle thereby the deceased died on spot. Being an employee of the Bank deceased was getting regular salary. Appellants had filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 36,00,000. 3. Insurance Company has taken defence of false implication of vehicle inter alia contending that accident has not taken place from the vehicle in question as well as other grounds has also been regarding violation of terms and conditions of the policy and the driver was not possessing valid driving licence. 4. Claims Tribunal while passing the impugned award assessed the income of the deceased Rs. 28,000 along with future prospects and after deduction of 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses, applied the multiplier of 13, and awarded a sum of Rs. 27,82,000 and by adding Rs. 9,500 in conventional heads a total sum of Rs. 27,91,500 has been awarded, out of from the same Rs. 7,00,000 has been deducted, which was paid by the Bank to the family of the deceased as ex gratia on account of non granting compassionate appointment to the family members. 5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant placing reliance on the Divisional Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bhanwri Bai and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another (2009) ACJ 1319, has contended that the amount of ex gratia is not deductible from the amount of compensation so awarded by the Claims Tribunal, therefore, such deduction is not permissible. 6. Mr. Union of India (UOI) and Another (2009) ACJ 1319, has contended that the amount of ex gratia is not deductible from the amount of compensation so awarded by the Claims Tribunal, therefore, such deduction is not permissible. 6. Mr. C.P. Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company has contended that in the FIR, number of vehicle was not specified but it could have been disclosed as per the statement of Vinay (AW-2) eyewitness. The Claims Tribunal has found prove that the accident took place by the said vehicle without examining the Investigating Officer in the claim petition to know how the said vehicle was found involved. In such circumstances the accident has not been fully established, therefore, its a case of false implication. In support of his contention learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Gaura Devi and Others Vs. Shahzad Khan and Others (2013) 2 ACC 173. On the point of deduction towards ex gratia reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan and Others Etc. Etc. (2002) 6 SCC 281 , and as per the judgment of Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. Smt. Kanta Aggarwal and Others (2008) 11 SCC 366 , and urged the amount of ex gratia has rightly been deducted from compensation because service benefits was given to them by Bank. 7. After hearing learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, first of all issue regarding false implication of the vehicle as raised by the Insurance Company, requires consideration. As per the contents of the FIR, which was lodged against an unknown vehicle, but subsequently as per the eye-witness in a criminal case namely Vinay, the vehicle in question was found involved by the police, however, in claim case the eye-witness of accident was present, and his testimony was relied upon to prove the accident. The Tribunal recorded the findings in this regard, in the considered opinion of this Court in the cross-examination of the said witness the defence of false implication was not put forth. In such circumstances the testimony of the eye-witness of the criminal case has rightly been relied. The Tribunal recorded the findings in this regard, in the considered opinion of this Court in the cross-examination of the said witness the defence of false implication was not put forth. In such circumstances the testimony of the eye-witness of the criminal case has rightly been relied. The judgment of Smt. Gaura Devi (supra), is having no application in the present case because in the said case absence of eyewitness, the Investigating Officer of criminal case was not examined, however, Tribunal rejected the claim. In the present case eye-witness of the criminal case has been adduced in a claim case who has proved the accident. Thus, the said judgment is distinguishable on facts of this case. 8. So far as the award of the compensation is concerned in the considered opinion of this Court the Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 27,91,500. So far as the deduction of the ex gratia is concerned it is to be observed here that the amount of ex gratia is paid to the family of the deceased when they applied for compassionate appointment. In this regard the State Government, Union of India and their undertakings which includes Bank has issued a policy specifying the fact on an application filed by the family members, if compassionate appointment was not made then ex gratia is payable to such family. In such circumstances the amount of ex gratia cannot be deducted as specified under the provision of Motor Vehicles Act. My view find support from the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhanwari Bai and Others v. Union of India and Another (supra), in the said judgment of Hon'ble Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan (supra) has already been considered by this Court and distinguished. In the considered opinion of this Court and in the light of judgment of the Division Bench with respect to deduction on the point of ex gratia directly cover the issue. However, deduction so made from the compensation amount towards ex gratia is not permissible. Accordingly the Misc. Appeal No. 2605/2011 filed by the claimants succeed and deduction of Rs. 7,00,000 from the amount of compensation is held illegal, therefore, the claimants would be entitled to receive the said amount. So far as Misc. However, deduction so made from the compensation amount towards ex gratia is not permissible. Accordingly the Misc. Appeal No. 2605/2011 filed by the claimants succeed and deduction of Rs. 7,00,000 from the amount of compensation is held illegal, therefore, the claimants would be entitled to receive the said amount. So far as Misc. Appeal No. 2270/2011 filed by the Insurance Company M.A. No. 2270/2011 is hereby dismissed. In the facts of the case, parties to bear their on cost.