JUDGMENT : The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 30.09.2010 passed by the District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T Godda, in M.A.C.T Case No.71/2007. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has impugned the award on the ground that the court below has committed error in assessing the compensation by deducting the salary received on the basis of compassionate appointment of the claimant-wife. Learned counsel has relied on the decision in the case of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shashi Sharma & Ors. ( AIR 2016 SC 4465 ) and argued that the benefits received on the basis of compassionate appointment cannot be deducted from the compensation amount payable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is submitted that the deceased was earning a salary of Rs.19,624.35/- as calculated by the court below but the Tribunal has assessed the compensation on the basis of the salary of the claimant-wife who was given compassionate appointment due to death in harness of the deceased. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has submitted that the decision relied on by learned counsel for the appellants is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the said case, the benefits which were not liable to be deducted was with regard to family pension, L.I.C and Provident Fund. That there is no finding with regard to non-deduction of the benefit on account of compassionate appointment. It is urged that the impugned judgment and award does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 4. Heard. It would be relevant to take note of the factual aspect of the claim case. It is stated in the claim application that on 07.10.2006 claimant's husband, Dev Ranjan Bhattacharya, along with his brother Prabhat Ranjan Bhattacharya and brother's wife Chaitali Bhattacharya and their nephew Sayantan Bhattacharya were tavelling on Marshal jeep bearing registration no.OR-19A-2901 and they were going to Talchar to Sambalpur. The said jeep was hit by a truck bearing registration no. OAS 1665. That due to the said accident, her husband, Dev Ranjan Bhattacharya, her nephew Sayantan Bhattacharya and driver of the Marshal jeep died on the spot and her brother-in-law Prabhat Ranjan Bhattacharya sustained injury leading to disablement. For the said accident, Jujumora P.S Case No.72/2006 was registered against the driver of the truck under section 379, 337, 338 and 304 A I.P.C. 5. For the said accident, Jujumora P.S Case No.72/2006 was registered against the driver of the truck under section 379, 337, 338 and 304 A I.P.C. 5. It is well settled proposition of law that the scheme of compassionate appointment is governed by the rules of the organization in which a person is employed and compassionate appointment of a dependent can be made in the eventuality of death of the employee in harness, even in case of natural death, whereas compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is a statutory provision. It has no co-relation with the benefits which the deceased is entitled to after his retirement from service or on account of his death in course of his employment. In the case of Vimal Kannour Vs. Kishore Dan (2013 (3) TAC 6), it has been categorically held that the benefit of compassionate appointment cannot be deducted from the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act. Admittedly, the Tribunal has erred in assessing and computing the compensation on the basis of the salary received by the claimant-wife due to compassionate appointment on account of death her husband in harness. Compensation payable is a property which devolves upon the dependent irrespective of the fact whether he is given compassionate appointment or not. 6. The question whether if the dependent was not given compassionate appointment, would he be deprived of the amount of compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act – the answer is definitely “no”. The provision of compassionate appointment is governed by certain qualification and every company or even the Government has rules regarding the qualification required for the compassionate appointment and there is no certainty in this matter whether the dependent can be considered for the compassionate appointment whereas under the Motor Vehicles Act, the statute mandates for payment of compensation in case of death or fatal injury of a person. 7. Therefore, in view of the settled legal position, the Tribunal has committed error in computing the compensation by deducting the benefit of salary drawn on the basis of compassionate appointment. 7. Therefore, in view of the settled legal position, the Tribunal has committed error in computing the compensation by deducting the benefit of salary drawn on the basis of compassionate appointment. The Tribunal should have assessed the salary of the deceased by adding 30% of the income towards future prospect of the earning of the deceased, thus the gross income of the deceased is computed at Rs.19,624/- + 30% towards future prospect = Rs.25,511/- and after deduction of 10% of the income towards tax, the actual income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.22,960/-. The deceased is survived by two dependents. In the obtaining evidence and circumstances of the case, it will be just and reasonable to deduct 1/3rd of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.22,960/-x 12 = Rs.2,75,520/- and after deduction of 1/3rd of the income, the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs.1,83,680/-. The deceased was aged 45 years, hence the multiplier applicable is 13. The total loss of dependency is assessed at Rs.1,83,680/-x 13 = Rs.23,87,840/-. A lump sum amount of Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, love and affection, suffering and pain and loss of estate. Thus, the claimants are entitled to be paid the compensation amount of Rs.23,87,840/- plus Rs.25,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- = Rs.26,12,840/-. 8. The respondent-United India Insurance Company Limited is directed to pay the amount of Rs.26,12,840/with interest at the rate of 6% in terms of the order of the court below within two months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% on the outstanding amount from the date of the order of this Court. Out of the compensation amount, 50% shall be invested as fixed deposit for a period of five years in the name of the daughter and 25% in the name of the claimant-appellant no.1 Ganga Bhattacharya and she shall be entitled to receive the annual interest accrued to meet her urgent expenses. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is, hereby, disposed off.