- (1.) The only ground on which the Tribunal has not considered the income of the deceased while awarding compensation is that under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (for short, 2006 Rules) the deceased was entitled to draw full amount of salary up to the age of superannuation. Learned Tribunal has observed as under:- "20. PW3 Shri Kaptan Singh, Assistant Office of the SDO brought the salary record of deceased Daya Nand and stated that he was paid a sum of Rs. 10,591/- as salary for the month of May 2008. He proved the salary certificate Ex. P2. In cross-examination he clarified that there is a policy of Government of Haryana that if a person/employee has died prior to his/her retirement, in that eventuality the Government shall pay full salary to the dependents up to the age of retirement and dependents of deceased Daya Nand are also getting full salary from the date of his death. The witness was again examined as RW1 by the respondents then he stated that deceased Daya Nand was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 8829/-. After his death petitioner No. 1 is getting full monthly salary. She would get full salary upto the age of 58 years of deceased Daya Nand. 21. From the aforementioned evidence it comes out that the petitioners are not going to suffer any loss of income due to death of Daya Nand as the petitioner No. 1 is getting full salary from the Department to be paid up to the age of retirement of her deceased husband. She will also get pension after the age of superannuation."
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for appellants, counsel for respondents and have perused the award passed by the Tribunal.
(3.) Learned counsel for appellants relied upon Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Purnima and others, 2013 2 RCR(Civ) 42, a judgment of Division Bench of this Court, where the matter was referred in view of conflict of opinion. The question posed by the Division Bench was "Whether the compensation received from the government under 2006 Rules (or otherwise) is to be deducted from the total compensation. It was held by the Division Bench as under:- "We, accordingly, hold that view taken in Saroj Devi's case is correct in law. Accordingly, the Insurance Companies shall not be entitled to the deduction of the amount given to the dependents under the Rules of 2006 while calculating compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act.";