JUDGMENT Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. - The appellant-insurance company has filed this appeal challenging the award/judgment dated 07.08.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Balasore in M.A.C. Case No. 153 f 2016. In the said award, the Tribunal has directed the appellant-insurance company to pay an amount of Rs.61,07,518/- along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum to the claimant-respondents from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e. from 12.04.2016 till its actual payment within two months from the date of award. It was also directed that out of the compensation amount, as awarded, the claimant- respondent no.1-wife of the deceased shall get a sum of Rs.31,07,518/-, out of which a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- shall be kept as fixed deposit in her name in a nationalized bank for a period of six years and the balance amount of Rs.6,07,518/- along with accrued interest over the entire compensation amount of Rs.61,07,518/- be paid to her in cash. The claimant-respondents 2 and 3, who are the daughters of the deceased, shall get a sum of Rs. 12,50,000/- each and the entire amount be kept as fixed deposit in their names separately in a nationalized bank for a period of six years in respect of respondent no.3 and till attaining majority in respect of respondent no.2. The respondent no.4, who is the father of the deceased, shall get a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- shall be kept as fixed deposit in his name in a nationalized bank for a period of six years and the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- be paid to him in cash. It was also observed by the Tribunal that there shall not be any premature withdrawal of the above fixed deposits without the permission of the Tribunal. However, respondent no.1 for self and on behalf of her minor daughters, i.e. respondents nos. 2 and 3, so also respondent no.4, is at liberty to withdraw the quarterly interest on the fixed deposits for their sustenance. 2. However, respondent no.1 for self and on behalf of her minor daughters, i.e. respondents nos. 2 and 3, so also respondent no.4, is at liberty to withdraw the quarterly interest on the fixed deposits for their sustenance. 2. The brief fact, as delineated in the impugned judgment, tends to reveal as follows:- On 04.04.2016 around 12.45 p.m., while the deceased was standing near Dwarasuni Thakurani temple, on the left side of the road and waiting for a bus in order to proceed to Baripada, at that time, the offending vehicle coming from backside, being driven in excessive speed with rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased from his backside and the front wheel of the offending vehicle ran over the deceased, thereby causing grievous injuries on vital organs of the deceased. The deceased became senseless at the spot. Immediately, the local people, fire brigade personnel rescued the deceased and shifted him to Bangiriposi Government Hospital for treatment, where he succumbed to the injuries. In connection with the accident, Bangiriposi P.S. Case No. 40 of 2016 was registered and investigation was taken up. Inquest as well as post mortem over the dead body of the deceased was conducted. The vehicular papers of the offending vehicle were valid and effective on the date of accident so also the driving license of the driver. It was equipped with valid permit and fitness. The deceased was 40 years of age on the date of accident and he was serving as Police Constable and earning Rs.30,122/- per month. For the premature death of the deceased, the respondents pleaded to have sustained pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss and accordingly filed the MAC Case No. 153 of 2016, wherein the award/judgment as indicated above has been passed. 3. Mr. G.Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant-insurance company vehemently contended that the award made by the Tribunal is exorbitant and grossly high for which interference of this Court is warranted. According to him, while passing the award, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the materials available on record in as much as, the Tribunal has not excluded the personal allowances paid, along with the monthly salary while computing the amount of compensation. He further contended that though several grounds have been set out in the memo of appeal, but he mainly relied upon ground nos. He further contended that though several grounds have been set out in the memo of appeal, but he mainly relied upon ground nos. 'B' and 'C' on account of which the award impugned is liable to be modified. In support of his contention with regard to ground No. 'C' pertaining to personal allowances, learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Mishra, relied on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Kalpanaraj v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (2015) 2 SCC 764 . 4. Mr. B. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, defending the award passed by the Tribunal, contended that the respondents are entitled to get the benefits and as such no error has been committed by the Tribunal in awarding such amount. However, so far as personal allowance is concerned, the respondents may not be entitled to such benefit as directed by the Tribunal, and there may be some arithmetical error committed by the Tribunal while computing the compensation. He contended that so far as personal living expenses of deceased is concerned, it should be 1/4th and not 1/3rd, as claimed by the appellant, and thereby the assessment so made has to be re-assessed and amount should be paid to the respondents, those who have suffered a mishap due to the death of the earning member of the family. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel for the respondents relied on the judgment of the apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Birendra and others, 2020 (1) T.A.C. 675 (S.C.). 5. This Court heard Mr. Goutam Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A. Dash, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents through hybrid mode, and perused the record. Pleadings having been completed, with the consent of both the parties the MACA is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that the main plank of argument of the appellant centers round ground nos. 'B' and 'C' as set out in the appeal memo. For the sake of convenience, ground nos. 'B' and 'C' are extracted hereunder. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that the main plank of argument of the appellant centers round ground nos. 'B' and 'C' as set out in the appeal memo. For the sake of convenience, ground nos. 'B' and 'C' are extracted hereunder. 'B. For that in the present case, the learned Tribunal failed to take note of the fact P.W.1 wife of deceased deposed in her cross examination that the petitioner No.4 is the father of the deceased and is getting monthly pension after retirement from service. Hence the petitioner no.4 cannot be considered as the dependant on the income of the deceased in the eye of law and accordingly the number of actual dependent is reduced to three for which the appropriate deduction towards personal living expenses of deceased should be @ 1/3rd instead of 1/4th as decided by the learned Tribunal. Thus, the impugned award is liable to be modified. C. For that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the law is well settled as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalpana Raj v. Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation [2014 (2) TAC 44] that the personal allowance paid along with monthly salary are to be excluded from the component of compensation. In this case, salary slip of deceased (Ext.7) shows Rs.1180/- was being paid on various personal allowances which should have been excluded from the monthly income of the deceased for calculation of the award amount. But the learned Tribunal erred in doing so and taken all type of allowances which are personal in nature for calculating the compensation. Thus, the impugned award is excessive and liable to be reduced substantially.' So far as ground no.'B' is concerned, it has been emphatically contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the father of the deceased was a government employee and after retirement he is getting monthly pension, therefore, he cannot be considered as a dependent on the income of the deceased in the eye of law and accordingly the number of actual dependant is reduced to three for which the appropriate deduction towards personal living expenses of deceased should be @1/3rd instead of 1/4th as decided by the Tribunal. In the said context, reliance has been placed by the appellant on the evidence of respondent No.1, who was examined as D.W.1. In the said context, reliance has been placed by the appellant on the evidence of respondent No.1, who was examined as D.W.1. She in her cross examination has stated as follows:- 'The petitioner No.4 is my father in law. My deceased husband was only son of his parent. Petitioner No.4 was an employee of DHH, Baripada. Since after retirement, petitioner No.4 is getting pension' According to the appellant-insurance company, respondent No.4 may not be entitled to get compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. Mr. Singh, however, relying on the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company (supra) contended that the father of the deceased is also a legal representative and he can make application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and, as such, clause (c) of Section 166 (1) envisages that where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, application for compensation can be made. For a just and proper adjudication of the case, clauses-'c' and 'd' of sub-Section (1) of Section-166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are quoted herein below:- 'Section 166. Application for compensation. (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased;' (d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be : Relying upon such provisions, the apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company (supra) held that, even the major married son, who is also earning and not fully dependent on the deceased, would be still covered by the expression 'legal representative' of the deceased. Reliance has also been placed on the case of Manjuri Bera (Smt) v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, (2007) 10 SCC 643 , which expounded that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the concerned legal representative. Reliance has also been placed on the case of Manjuri Bera (Smt) v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, (2007) 10 SCC 643 , which expounded that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the concerned legal representative. It is also further contended that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation and it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased, being the legal representatives, have a right to apply for compensation and it would be bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. 7. The submission of Mr. G. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant to the above context is that the relied case is distinguishable from the fact of the present case, as in the instant case, respondent No.4 is a government employee and getting pension, for which, he is not entitled to get such benefit. Such submission of Mr. Mishra is not acceptable, in view of the fact that there is no dispute that respondent No.4 is the legal representative of the deceased. In view of the provisions contained in Section 166 (1) (c) (d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as quoted above, even though respondent No.4 is an employee receiving pension, he can be construed as a legal representative of the deceased and also can make an application for compensation. On that basis, if he has made an application for compensation and the same has been considered by the Tribunal, on the basis of the materials available on record, by awarding compensation, it cannot be said that any error has been committed by the Tribunal, so as to cause interference by this Court. Therefore, the ground taken that the calculation of compensation is to be made taking living expenses of deceased @ 1/3rd instead of 1/4th cannot sustain in the eye of law. 8. The next ground of challenge of the appellant-insurance is company with regard to exclusion of the personal allowances, which has been calculated at Rs.1180 as per Ext.7. Therefore, the ground taken that the calculation of compensation is to be made taking living expenses of deceased @ 1/3rd instead of 1/4th cannot sustain in the eye of law. 8. The next ground of challenge of the appellant-insurance is company with regard to exclusion of the personal allowances, which has been calculated at Rs.1180 as per Ext.7. In view of the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Kalpanaraj (supra), this amount has to be excluded and this fact has not been disputed by Mr. B. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. Mr. G. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that if ground nos. 'B' and 'C' of the appeal memo are considered in favour of the appellant-insurance company, then the amount of compensation will come down to Rs.52,22,053/-. However, since this Court has not accepted ground no. 'B', taking into consideration ground no. 'C' a calculation was made by Mr. B. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, according to which the extent of compensation comes to Rs.58,68, 567/-. 9. At this point of time, this Court called upon the parties to agree on a particular amount, so that the matter can be settled for all times to come. Learned counsel for both the parties contended that if the compensation amount is settled at Rs.55,00,000/- along with the other directions of the Tribunal, then the dispute can be resolved. 10. In view of such position, this court disposes of the appeal directing the appellant- insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.55,00,000/- (rupees fifty five laks), along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum to the respondents from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e. from 12.04.2016 till its payment, within a period of two months from today. As agreed to by the parties, out of the compensation amount, as awarded by this Court, the claimant- respondent no.1-wife of the deceased shall get a sum of Rs.28,00,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- shall be kept as fixed deposit in her name in any nationalized bank for a period of six years and the balance amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, along with accrued interest over the entire compensation amount of Rs.55,00,000/- shall be paid to her in cash. The claimant-respondents 2 and 3, who are the daughters of the deceased shall get a sum of Rs. The claimant-respondents 2 and 3, who are the daughters of the deceased shall get a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- each and the entire amount shall be kept as fixed deposit in their names separately in any nationalized bank for a period of six years in respect of respondent nos. 2 and 3. The respondent no.4, who is the father of the deceased, shall get a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- shall be kept as fixed deposit in his name in any nationalized bank for a period of six years and the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- shall be paid to him in cash. It is observed that there shall not be any premature withdrawal of the above fixed deposit amount without the permission of the Tribunal. However respondent no.1 for self and on behalf of her minor daughters, i.e. respondents nos. 2 and 3 so also the respondent no.4, is at liberty to withdraw the quarterly interest on the fixed deposits for their sustenance. The court fee amount, if not paid, shall be realized from the respondents at the time of disbursement of the amount. After deposit of the awarded amount before the Tribunal and on production of proof thereof, the appellant-insurance company shall apply for refund of the statutory deposit, which shall be dealt with in accordance with law. 11. In view of the above observations and directions, the MACA is allowed in part. LCR be sent back to the Court below immediately.