JUDGMENT & ORDER : The sole question which falls for consideration in these two appeal is whether the compassionate appointment to the wife of the victim who died while on escort duty to a VIP due to the indiscriminate gun firing by extremists upon the vehicle he was riding with others and the various financial benefits extended to his family can disentitle payment of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The impugned judgment is dated 3-9-2012 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.2, West Tripura awarding a compensation of Rs. 11,72,351/- to the family of the victim. 2. To simplify the controversy, I will first deal with and decide MAC Appeal No.136 of 2012 and then make an attempt to decide MAC Appeal No.84 of 2013 on the basis of that decision. The facts giving rise to the appeal may be briefly noticed at the outset. On 26-4-2001, Badal Bhowmik (the deceased), a Head Constable in the Tripura Police Department, as member of the escort party of an MLA, was travelling by a police vehicle towards Kanta Kobra Para under Jirania PS and when the vehicle reached a place about 3 kilometres away from Kanta Kobra Para, a group of ATTF extremists all on a sudden indiscriminately fired from sophisticated weapons fired upon their vehicle from both sides of the road. This resulted in the instantaneous death of the deceased and one other member of the escort party. The deceased is survived by his wife, his four daughters and one son, who filed the claim petition against the State respondents, registered owners of the ill-fated vehicle, for payment of compensation for the death of the deceased. 3. The claim petition is resisted by the State-respondents, who filed their written statement denying any liability to pay the compensation so claimed. According to the answering respondents, the wife of the deceased has already been extended financial assistance in the form of Rs. 2,00,000/-, Group Insurance of Rs. 38,209/-, GPF final payment of Rs. 1,55,909/- and leave salary of Rs. 62,244/-, the total whereof comes to Rs. 4,56,362/-, family pension and a government job under the Die-in-harness scheme on compassionate ground. According to the answering respondents, the wife of the deceased has already been extended financial assistance in the form of Rs. 2,00,000/-, Group Insurance of Rs. 38,209/-, GPF final payment of Rs. 1,55,909/- and leave salary of Rs. 62,244/-, the total whereof comes to Rs. 4,56,362/-, family pension and a government job under the Die-in-harness scheme on compassionate ground. The answering respondents, therefore, submit that the claimant-respondents cannot make further financial benefits under the Motor Vehicles Act; it is the statutory duty of the Tribunal to consider the benefits already received by the claimant respondents in awarding a just compensation. 4. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: 1. Whether Badal Bhowmik (deceased), S/o late Jatindra Bhowmik died arising out of a motor vehicle accident on 26-4-2001 at about 10.30 hours at Kantakobra Para under Jirania P.S. while he was performing escort duty in a vehicle bearing No. TRP-459 (Jeep) of the Police Department due to firing of the extremists aiming the vehicle? 2. Whether the claimant petitioners are entitled to get any compensation due to the said death, if so, what would be the quantum of compensation and who shall be held liable for payment of the same? 5. Based on the decision of the Apex Court in Samir Chandra v. Managing Director, Assam State Transport Corporation, 1998 ACJ 1351 and the decision of Gauhati High Court in Bipal Bashi Das v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2005 (3) GLT 407, the Tribunal held that the militant did not attack the vehicle with the sole intention to kill the deceased, rather to exhibit their revolt against the State sovereignty and loot the arms and ammunitions of the security personnel in which the deceased became the unfortunate victim. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the deceased died due to a road traffic accident occurring on 26-4-2001, which arose out of the use of motor vehicle bearing registration No. TRP-459 (Jeep). As this part of the judgment is not under challenge in this appeal, the same has attained finality. 6. It is with respect to the question posed in the beginning that Mr. P. Gautam, the learned counsel for the State-respondents, has argued with vehemence. On the other hand, Mr. As this part of the judgment is not under challenge in this appeal, the same has attained finality. 6. It is with respect to the question posed in the beginning that Mr. P. Gautam, the learned counsel for the State-respondents, has argued with vehemence. On the other hand, Mr. Somik Dev, the learned counsel for the claimant-respondents, however, supports the impugned judgment and maintains that the impugned judgment does not call for the interference of this Court. He has cited a number of decisions of the Apex Court to fortify his submissions. However, suffice it to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan and others, (2013) 7 SCC 476 . Two questions were posed in that case, namely, (i) whether provident fund, pension and insurance receivable by the claimants come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “pecuniary advantage” liable for deduction? (ii) Whether the salary receivable by the claimant on compassionate appointment comes within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “pecuniary advantage” liable for deduction”? The Apex Court held: “19. The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before this Court in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC (1999) 1 SCC 90 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 197. In the said case, this Court held that provident fund, pension, insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. are all a “pecuniary advantage” receivable by the heirs on account of one’s death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. Such an amount will not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “pecuniary advantage” liable for deduction. The following was the observation and finding of this Court: (SCC pp. 111-12, para 35) “35. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the event viz. accident, which may not take place at all. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the event viz. accident, which may not take place at all. Similarly, family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No co-relation between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy is received either by the insured or the heirs of the insured on account of the contract with the insurer, for which the insured contributes in the form of premium. It is receivable even by the insured if he lives till maturity after paying all the premiums. In the case of death, the insurer indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contract for the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant not on account of any accidental death but otherwise on the insured’s death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the contract, to receive the amount. Similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. though are all a pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one’s death but all these have no co-relation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. How could such an amount come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as ‘pecuniary advantage’ liable for deduction. When we seek the principle of loss and gain, it has to be on a similar and same plane having nexus, inter se, between them and not to which there is no semblance of any co-relation. The insured (the deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount which has no co-relation to the compensation computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident. The insured (the deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount which has no co-relation to the compensation computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident. As aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation under the Act is on account of the injury or death without making any contribution towards it, then how can the fruits of an amount received through contributions of the insured be deducted out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act he receives without any contribution. As we have said, the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount receivable under the life insurance policy is contractual.” As for the second issue, the Apex Court observed as under: “21. “Compassionate appointment” can be one of the conditions of service of an employee, if a scheme to that effect is framed by the employer. In case, the employee dies in harness i.e. while in service leaving behind the dependants, one of the dependants may request for compassionate appointment to maintain the family of the deceased employee who dies in harness. This cannot be stated to be an advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one’s death and have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned on account of accidental death. Compassionate appointment may have nexus with the death of an employee while in service but it is not necessary that it should have a correlation with the accidental death. An employee dies in harness even in normal course, due to illness and to maintain the family of the deceased one of the dependants may be entitled for compassionate appointment but that cannot be termed as “pecuniary advantage” that comes under the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act and any amount received on such appointment is not liable for deduction for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.” 7. In this case, financial benefits amounting to Rs. 4,56,362/- comprising of Financial Assistance of Rs. 2,00,000/- under the Insurance Scheme of the Tripura Government, Group Insurance of Rs. 38,209, GPF final payment amounting to Rs. 1,55,909/- and leave salary amounting to Rs. 62,244/- have been extended to the claimant-respondents. In addition, the claimant-respondent No. 1, widow of the deceased, was given appointment under the “Die-in-harness Scheme” on compassionate ground. 2,00,000/- under the Insurance Scheme of the Tripura Government, Group Insurance of Rs. 38,209, GPF final payment amounting to Rs. 1,55,909/- and leave salary amounting to Rs. 62,244/- have been extended to the claimant-respondents. In addition, the claimant-respondent No. 1, widow of the deceased, was given appointment under the “Die-in-harness Scheme” on compassionate ground. In my opinion, all these financial benefits are secured amounts which are receivable by the claimant-respondents irrespective of his accidental death. In other words, they have no co-relation with his accidental death as held in Vimal Kanwar case (supra). There is no evidence to show that the financial assistance of Rs. 2,00,000/- is by way of ex gratia payment. In fact, all that the State-appellants said in the memo of appeal is that this “financial benefit of Rs. 2,00,000/- was also given under Insurance Scheme as provided by the Government of Tripura to the claimant-respondents as compensation” and did not say that such payment is to be made irrespective of his accidental death. The burden of proof is on them to show that this is something in the nature of ex gratia and has no co-relation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of his accidental death. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity and is affirmed. 8. For what has been stated in the foregoing, this appeal fails and is dismissed. The State-appellants are, therefore, directed to pay a sum of Rs. 11,72,351 together with interest @ 6% per annum with effect from the date of the claim petition in favour of the claimant-respondents within two months from the date of receipt of this judgment in accordance with the apportionment made by the Tribunal. Needless to say, any amount already deposited by them or paid to the claimant-respondents shall be adjusted accordingly. Needless to say, the amount deposited/being deposited shall be released to the claimant respondents after satisfying the usual formalities without further reference to this Court. Transmit the L.C. record. MAC Appeal No.84 of 2013 9. In this appeal, the claimant-respondents are wife and son of late Narendra Debnath, who also died in the same accident as in the foregoing MAC Appeal No.136 of 2012 in the same accident. As in the previous case, there is no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. 10 Resultantly, the State-appellants are directed to deposit Rs. In this appeal, the claimant-respondents are wife and son of late Narendra Debnath, who also died in the same accident as in the foregoing MAC Appeal No.136 of 2012 in the same accident. As in the previous case, there is no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. 10 Resultantly, the State-appellants are directed to deposit Rs. 10,02,229/- together with interest @ 6% per annum with effect from the date of the claim petition with this Registry within two months from the date of receipt of this judgment for payment to the claimant-respondents in accordance with the apportionment made by the Tribunal. Any amount already deposited by the State-appellants or paid to the claimant-respondents shall be adjusted accordingly. As and when the amount is deposited, the same will be released to the claimant-respondents after satisfying the usual formalities without further reference to this Court. Transmit the L.C. record.