JUDGMENT : : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard and decided finally. 2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 06.02.2020 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajgarh in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 67/2018 whereby, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 40,80,000/- in favour of appellants-claimants on account of the death of Kuldeep Kumar in the accident which occurred on 25.04.2018. 3. The learned Tribunal, after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decided the claim petition of the appellants-claimants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants - claimants submitted that the Tribunal had not computed the award properly and the amount which was paid as an ex-gratia amount, was wrongly deducted from the amount of compensation in the present case. He further submits that the deductions were also made from the income of the deceased to the extent of 50% as spent on himself and thus, the Tribunal committed an error while awarding the amount of compensation and awarded the sum of compensation on the lower side. He, therefore, prayed for enhancement of the compensation suitably. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the judgment and award dated 06.02.2020 passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and the Tribunal had correctly taken into consideration all the factors while computing the compensation in the present case. 6. Shri Rajesh Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that the deduction of the ex-gratia payment from the total amount of the award computed by the Tribunal was rightly made in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shashi Sharma reported in 2016 (2) R.A.R. 129 (Supreme Court). He further submits that since the deceased Kuldeep Kumar was an unmarried person, therefore, the deduction of 50% amount from the income as spent on himself was rightly done in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) SC 5157. 7. I have gone through the judgment and award dated 06.02.2020 and other relevant record of the case submitted during the course of the arguments. 8. 7. I have gone through the judgment and award dated 06.02.2020 and other relevant record of the case submitted during the course of the arguments. 8. The admitted facts in the present case are that the deceased Kuldeep Kumar was an unmarried person and therefore, the Tribunal was correct in deducting 50% of the amount of income as spent on himself in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 9. The ex-gratia payment was made by the Central Government as the deceased was an employee of the Central Government, therefore, the same was rightly deducted from the total amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shashi Sharma reported in 2016 (2) R.A.R. 129 (Supreme Court), wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- Indeed, similar statutory exclusion of claim receivable under the Rules of 2006 is absent. That, however, does not mean that the Claims Tribunal should remain oblivious to the fact that the claim towards loss of Pay and wages of the deceased has already been or will be compensated by the employer in the form of ex-gratia financial assistance on compassionate grounds under Rule 5(1). The Claims Tribunal has to adjudicate the claim and determine the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just. The amount receivable by the dependents/claimants towards the head of pay and allowances in the form of ex-gratia financial assistance, therefore, cannot be paid for the second time to the claimants. True it is, that the Rules of 2006 would come into play if the Government employee dies in harness even due to natural death. At the same time, the Rules of 2006 do not expressly enable the dependents of the deceased Government employee to claim similar amount from the tortfeasor or Insurance Company because of the accidental death of the deceased Government employee. The harmonious approach for determining a just compensation payable under the Act of 1988, therefore, is to exclude the amount received or receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government employee under the Rules of 2006 towards the head financial assistance equivalent to "pay and other allowances" that was last drawn by the deceased Government employee in the normal course. The harmonious approach for determining a just compensation payable under the Act of 1988, therefore, is to exclude the amount received or receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government employee under the Rules of 2006 towards the head financial assistance equivalent to "pay and other allowances" that was last drawn by the deceased Government employee in the normal course. This is not to say that the amount or payment receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government employee under Rule 5(1) of the Rules, is the total entitlement under the head of "loss of income". So far as the claim towards loss of future escalation of income and other benefits, if the deceased Government employee had survived the accident can still be pursued by them in their claim under the Act of 1988. For, it is not covered by the Rules of 2006. Similarly, other benefits extended to the dependents of the deceased Government employee in terms of sub-rule (2) to sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 including family pension, Life Insurance, Provident Fund etc., that must remain unaffected and cannot be allowed to be deducted, which, any way would be paid to the dependents of the deceased Government employee, applying the principle expounded in Helen C. Rebello and Patricia Jean Mahajan's cases (supra). 10. In view of the discussion made above, this Court finds that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. 11. Thus, there is no force in the present appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.