JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. 1. This is an appeal Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 filed at the instance of the claimants (wife and children of the deceased) for enhancement of compensation awarded by 3RD Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in MACT Case No. 135 of 1998. 2. Brief facts involved in the matter is that while the husband of the appellant No. 1 was returning to his residence on his Scooter at about 7 P.M on N.H. No. 5 at Acharya Vihar Chhak, Bhubaneswar, the offending Truck bearing Registration No. 0R02 H 5173 came in a high speed in rash and negligent manner from his behind and ran over him, resulting the death of the deceased on the spot. The family members of the deceased appearing as the appellants filed the Claim case before the 3RD Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar making a claim of Rs. 2, 60,000/- as whole compensation. The claimants' claim was on the basis that the husband of the appellant No. 1 was a retired Executive Engineer and a pension holder. He was drawing Rs. 6000/- per month as his pension at the time of death. 3. Upon notice in the matter, respondent No. 1 choose to remain ex parte however respondent No. 2 on its appearance filed written statement disputing the reason of death as well as the claim at the instance of the claimants. Respondent No. 2 denied its liability on the ground that the driver of the offending Truck had no valid driving licence and the offending Truck was also not having valid insurance policy. 4. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, learned Claims Tribunal framed the following issues: "i)Whether the death of Dhruba Charan Das occurred due to motor vehicle accident involving vehicle No. 0R02 H 5173 (Truck)? ii) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and/or negligent in causing the accident? iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation and if so to what extent and from which O.Ps?" 5. While deciding the matter, learned Claims Tribunal not only held the offending Truck was having a valid licence but also held that the driver of the offending Truck was also having a valid driving licence at the time of accident. iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation and if so to what extent and from which O.Ps?" 5. While deciding the matter, learned Claims Tribunal not only held the offending Truck was having a valid licence but also held that the driver of the offending Truck was also having a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Taking resort to the age of the deceased to be 62 years at the time of accident, learned Tribunal applied "7" multiplier and further taking resort to the materials available on record that the deceased was drawing Rs. 6000/- as pension per month being a retired Executive Engineer, considered the monthly pension to be Rs. 2,000/- per month after deduction of the family pension contribution, calculated the contribution by the husband as Rs. 2,000/- per month and on the basis of this calculation, the total loss of income was assessed to be Rs. 1,68,000/-. Further after deducting 1/4th amount towards personal living expenses, learned Tribunal held the total amount of compensation to be Rs. 1,26,000/-. The learned Tribunal also granted a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses, computing the total compensation to be Rs. 1,46,000/-. Taking note of the fact that the appellants were already paid a portion of compensation deducting the compensation already awarded directed for grant of balance compensation of Rs. 65,424/- along with simple interest @ 7% per annum both pendente lite and future from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. Learned Tribunal also further directed for preserving some amount out of the compensation so granted by way of fixed deposit for future benefits of the appellants. 6. Challenging the aforesaid judgment, the appellants (claimants) submitted that the learned Tribunal has not adopted the real mode of calculation and the calculation mode adopted by the Tribunal is unknown to law. The appellants also substantiated their claim saying that the fact of deduction of family pension from the contribution of the deceased is wrong and further contended that pension insurance, pensionary benefits are not dependant on death but are payable because of the savings or thrift practised by the deceased and thus claim for interference in the award and thereby raising the amount of compensation in favour of the deceased. The respondent No. 2 on its response submitted that since the deceased was a pension earner and upon death of the deceased, the family members continued with receipt of family pension, no amount ought to be awarded by way of compensation. Respondent No. 2 also submitted that in view of payment of family pension, there is no loss on account of loss to the family on the death of the deceased. Therefore, the family members of the deceased are not otherwise entitle to any compensation. 7. There is no dispute that the deceased had died in a road accident for the reason of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Truck. There is also no dispute that the offending Truck was having a valid insurance policy. At the same time the driver of the offending Truck was also having a valid licence at the time of accident. It also remain undisputed that the deceased was a retired Executive Engineer and was drawing pension of Rs. 6000/- per month. From the discussion, in the award, it appears that the fact of receipt of family pension @ Rs. 4000/- by the family members of the deceased also remain undisputed. This Court observes that grant of pension to a retired employee never remain static and it gets a revision after a particular year. Thus taking the contribution of the deceased to the family to be Rs. 2000/- all through is improper. Be that as it may, the case involved here is a case of death. No amount of compensation can compensate the death of a person in the family. Since the deceased was a retired Executive Engineer, it can not be said that he had only pension as his income. In the above circumstances and striking a balance in view of the claim on account of death of a person in the family, this Court feels grant of further consolidated compensation of Rs. 35,000/- (Thirty five thousand) in addition to the compensation already awarded, would meet the ends of justice. The additional amount of compensation as granted herein above, be paid to the appellants within a period of one month from the date of this judgment. The appeal succeeds to the extent indicated herein above and there shall be no order as to cost. Final Result : Partly Allowed