JUDGMENT Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. :- 1. Appellants/Claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the award dated 4th of September, 1999 passed by the 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No.7 /99, whereby, their Claim Petition, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was dismissed by the Tribunal. 2. The appellants are the widow and sons of the deceased-Phool Singh, who died in the motor accident on 5.12.1998 when his bicycle was dashed by the vehicle, Matador bearing registration No. MP 23 D-A/0617. The appellants pleaded that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the . Matador by its driver. They further pleaded that the deceased was aged about 63 years. He was a retired Gram Sahayak and was earning Rs.2,800/- per month by giving tuitions in the village. They claimed compensation of Rs. 7 ,39,000/-. 3. The owner and the driver pleaded that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the deceased himself as the deceased dashed his bicycle from the Matador, which was coming from the opposite direction. The Insurer admitted the factum of the insurance, however, it denied the other pleading of the appellants. 4. The appellants examined Rania Bai (A W -1), Shyamlal Sahu (A W -2) and Ballu Gendre (A W-3) in support of their Claim Petition, whereas, the nonapplicants did not examine any witness in rebuttal. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that the appellants/claimants could not establish that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The appellants also could not establish that the deceased was earning some amount after his retirement. It further recorded a finding that after the death of the deceased, who was a retired employee, his widow must be getting some pension, therefore, the appellants were not entitled to any compensation on account of death of the deceased in motor accident and their Claim Petition was dismissed. 6. Mr. Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel for the appellants, argued that the Tribunal erred in law in recording a finding that the appellants could not establish that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. 6. Mr. Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel for the appellants, argued that the Tribunal erred in law in recording a finding that the appellants could not establish that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. He also argued that even if there was no clinching evidence about income of the deceased, the Tribunal should have gone through the notional income and have determined the loss of dependency. About the family pension, he argued that it was a contribution in terms of service conditions, which the heirs of the employee were bound to receive. On this count, the appellants cannot be deprived of compensation which they can get according to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. He referred to the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the matter of Mrs. Helen C. Rebello and others Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. and another. 7. On the other hand, Mr. AX. Athaley, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, opposed these arguments and supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Claims Case. 9. Ballu Gendre (A W - 3) has been examined on the point of accident. He deposed that "On the fateful day at about 6-6.30 p.m., he was going along with the deceased on his bicycle from zeropoint to Barouda. Deceased- Phool Singh was driving the bicycle and he was sitting as a pillion rider. When they saw that a Matador is coming from opposite direction, Phool Singh asked him to get down from the bicycle, he got down from the bicycle and as soon as Phool Singh went ahead to a distance of 5-6 ft., the Matador dashed his bicycle. Phool Singh fell down in injured condition. He was taken to the Medical 'College Hospital, Raipur, where he died in the morning". In the cross examination by non-applicants No.1 & 2, he had denied the suggestion that they were driving the bicycle in zigzag manner and in fact, the bicycle dashed the Matador. He further denied the other suggestions. Nothing has been brought in his cross examination, on which, the testimony of this witness may be discarded. In the cross examination by non-applicants No.1 & 2, he had denied the suggestion that they were driving the bicycle in zigzag manner and in fact, the bicycle dashed the Matador. He further denied the other suggestions. Nothing has been brought in his cross examination, on which, the testimony of this witness may be discarded. We are unable to understand as to why the Tribunal did not believe the testimony of this witness on the point-of accident. In our considered view, the finding of the Tribunal thatthe appellants/claimants could not prove that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside that finding and hold that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. 10. Now we shall quantify the compensation. No doubt the appellants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.2,800/- per month by giving tuitions in the village but the evidence led in this regard was not of clinching nature. The widow- Rania Bai (A W -1) said that the deceased was giving to her Rs.2,700/- 2,800/- per month for house holds. The son- Shyamlal (AW-2) has also said that his father was earning Rs.2,500/- per month by giving tuitions to the students. When the evidence led by the parties were not clinching on the point of income, the Tribunal ought to have taken recourse to the notional income prescribed in the second schedule u/s 163-A of the Act. This notional income was prescribed in the year 1994. The accident in which the deceased lost his life took place in the year 1998. If the increase in the price of essential commodities and the cost of living between the years 1994 & 1998 is taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- prescribed in the year 1994 would come to Rs.24,000/- per annum in the year 1998. We, therefore, propose to compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. Looking to the age of the deceased. which was 63 years and further looking to the age of the widow (58 years) and the appellant No.3 ( 16 years), we choose the multiplier of5. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. Looking to the age of the deceased. which was 63 years and further looking to the age of the widow (58 years) and the appellant No.3 ( 16 years), we choose the multiplier of5. By applying the l11ultiplierof5, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.80,000/-. By adding a further some Rs. 15,000/- under other permissible heads, the total amount of compensation, payable to the appellants on account of death of the deceased•• Phool Singh in the Motor accident comes to Rs.95,000/-. 11. So far as arguments relating to payment of family pension is concerned, as held by the Apex Court in the matter of Mrs. Helen C. Rebello (supra), which has been relied by the learned counsel for the appellants, the family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death, therefore, there is no co-relation between the two. Though this is a pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but this has no co-relation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. How could such an amount come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as 'pecuniary advantage' liable for deduction. When we seek principle of loss and gain, it has to be on similar and same plane having nexus inter se between them and not to which, there is no semblance of any co-relation. The deceased contributes his own money which has no co-relation to the compensation computed as against tortfeasor for his negligence on account of accident. The Apex Court said that the amount receivable as compensation under the Act is on account of the injury or death without making any contribution towards it, then how can fruits of an amount received through contributions be deducted out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act, is received without any contribution. The compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory. 12. The amount under this Act, is received without any contribution. The compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory. 12. In view of the above, the finding of the Tribunal that since the widow might be getting the family pension after the death of the deceased, she would not be entitled for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be sustained. Moreover, it's a case in which the appellants have pleaded that even after the retirement from the post of Gram Sahayak, the deceased was earning by giving tuitions in the village. Therefore, this was an additional income of the deceased, pleaded by the appellants, which ought to have been considered by the Tribunal notwithstanding with the facts that the appellants might be getting family pension after the death of the deceased. We may also point out that there is no cross examination about the family pension etc. received by the widow, therefore, such finding of the Tribunal regarding non-entitlement of compensation on account of family pension can also not be sustained. 13. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award is set aside. The appellants are awarded a sum of Rs.95,000/- as the amount of compensation on account of death of deceased- Phool Singh in the motor accident. It is stated that a sum of Rs.50,000/- has already been paid to the appellants towards no fault liability. Therefore, now the appellants shall get Rs.45,000/- as the outstanding amount towards compensation. On this amount, they will also get interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till its realization. The Insurance Company is granted 3 months time to deposit this amount. 14. No orders as to costs. Appeal Allowed.