HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1180 of 2012 Court No. - 50 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. I.A. No. 4 of 2022 1. The application has been filed seeking substitution on account of the death of the opposite party no.2. As the other legal representative is already on record, the substitution application is allowed. 2. Let the necessary incorporation be made in the array of the parties by the applicant during the course of the day. Order on Appeal 3. The present appeal has been filed challenging an award dated 31.01.2012 passed under the Employees Compensation Act, whereby an amount of Rs.3,62,740/- was awarded on account of the death of the employee of the respondent no.3 while on duty. It was alleged by the claimants that their son died while on duty on 14.12.2010 on account of the injuries sustained. It was stated that the deceased was aged about 42 years. 4. The Tribunal after considering the evidence passed an award awarding an amount of Rs.3,62,740/- based upon the table prescribed under the Employees Provident Fund Act. 5. While challenging the said, the counsel for the appellant argues that at the time of the death, some amounts were paid by the respondent no.3 to the claimants towards full and final settlement and thus, the said amount Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Sudhanshu Behari Lal Gour, V.C. Dixit Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashish Mishra, Hari Prakash Singh, Shailesh Rai, Rishi Bhushan Jauhari The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .....Appellant(s) Smt. Krishna Devi And Others .....Respondent(s) of Rs.2,00,000/- should have been debited from the total amount awarded. It is further argued that the documentary evidence was not provided. The appeal was admitted on question No. B and C which are as under : "B. Whether the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner was justified in applying the factor of 181.37 accepting the age of the deceased as 41 years, whereas as per claim petition and according to the claimants the age of the deceased was 42 years and the factor 178.49 is applicable as provided in Schedule IV The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 ? C. Whether the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner was justified in not adjusting Rs.2,00,000/- from the compensation awarded to the claimants, which had already been received by the claimants from the employer under the agreement." 6. Considering the issue no.1, the Tribunal while awarding the compensation has considered the average age of 41 years, on which the factor was applied, no error can be shown, which can be said to be a substantial question of law warranting interference in the said finding. With regard to the second issue that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid towards full and final settlement to the claimants and was also admitted, the said is also liable to be rejected as the compensation claimed by the respondents is a statutory compensation flowing from the Employees Compensation Act and there cannot be any agreement superseding the statutory intent of awarding the compensation. Even in the said agreement, there is no material to suggest that the claimants had given up their right of claiming the compensation under the statute. In view thereof, the second question of law, as framed by this court, is also decided against the appellant. 7. In view thereof, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. 8. The said amount shall be payable to the claimants along with the statutory interest as prescribed under section 4(a)(iii-a) of the Act. The amount deposited shall be taken into consideration while awarding the interest under section 4(a)(iii-a) of the Act. 9. The amount shall be paid through RTGS by the Tribunal directly in the FAFO No. 1180 of 2012 2 account of the claimants. In case, the bank account contains the details of anybody other than the family members of the claimants, the amount shall not be deposited in that account and the claimants would be required to open a bank account either singly or jointly with family members only in view of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 17.1 of Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal and others: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 318 and in para 9 of Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.7 of 2024 In Re:Compensation Amounts Deposited with Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and Labour Courts May 12, 2026 VNP/- FAFO No. 1180 of 2012 3 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad