Judgment : R. Subbiah, J. 1. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded in the claim petition filed by the claimant / the first respondent herein in M.C.O.P.No.24 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Cheyyar, Tiruvannmalai, the present appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation stating that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and arbitrary. 2. The brief facts are, that on 5.4.2008 at about 5.30 a.m., while the husband of the claimant / the first respondent herein viz., Muniappan was proceeding in his two wheeler bearing registration No.TN V 6498, a bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation bearing registration No.TN 21 N 0737 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler and caused the accident. In the said accident, the deceased Muniappan sustained severe injuries. Immediately, he was taken to Government Hospital at Vandavasi and thereafter, he was shifted to Ramachandran Hospital, Porur, where he died. Hence, the wife of the deceased along with her minor son filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.30,27,905.60 as compensation. 3. Resisting the claim petition, the Transport Corporation has filed a counter affidavit denying the age, occupation and income of the deceased Asokan. It was also stated that the driver of the bus was not responsible for the accident and therefore, the Transport Corporation is not liable to pay the compensation. 4. Before the Tribunal, in order to prove the claim, on the side of the claimant, the claimant examined herself as P.W.1, besides examining one Dakshinamoorthy as P.W.2 and marked 15 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.15. On the side of the respondents, no evidence was adduced. 5. The Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the accident is the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. By coming to such a conclusion, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.18,45,200/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum as against the claim of 30,27,905.60. The break up details of the amount awarded by the Tribunal, are as follows:- Loss of income : Rs. 17,92,128/- Loss of consortium : Rs. 15,000/- Loss of love and affection : Rs. 30,000/- For funeral expenses : Rs. 5,000/- For transport charges : Rs. 3,000/- Total : Rs. 18,45,128/- Rounded of Rs. The break up details of the amount awarded by the Tribunal, are as follows:- Loss of income : Rs. 17,92,128/- Loss of consortium : Rs. 15,000/- Loss of love and affection : Rs. 30,000/- For funeral expenses : Rs. 5,000/- For transport charges : Rs. 3,000/- Total : Rs. 18,45,128/- Rounded of Rs. 18,45,200/- Aggrieved over the said quantum of compensation, the present appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation. 6. Since this appeal has been filed only questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, we are not dealing with the other aspects of the award. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation has submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased Muniappan was working as Junior Assistant in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. After his demise, his wife, the first respondent herein is receiving the pension amount. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have deducted the pension amount that the first respondent is receiving every month. Further, learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation submitted that the first respondent has also got a job on compassionate grounds and she is receiving wages from the said job. Therefore, the monthly wages that the claimant is presently receiving from the said job is liable to be deducted from the monthly income of the deceased. Further, he has submitted that no amount was deducted towards income tax. He has also submitted that while adopting the multiplier method, the Tribunal has applied the higher multiplier of 16, which resulted in awarding an exorbitant amount as compensation. Hence, by adopting the lesser multiplier, the compensation amount has to be reduced. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimant/ first respondent herein submitted that at the time of death, the deceased was working as Junior Assistant in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and receiving a sum of Rs.14,365/- as monthly income. In order to prove the same, the salary certificate of the deceased was marked as Ex.P.15. But, the Tribunal has taken only a sum of Rs.14,000/- as monthly income and thereafter, deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, fixed a sum of Rs.9,334/- as loss of monthly contribution to the family and by adopting multiplier of 16, the Tribunal arrived at a sum of Rs.17,92,128/- as total loss of income. But, the Tribunal has taken only a sum of Rs.14,000/- as monthly income and thereafter, deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, fixed a sum of Rs.9,334/- as loss of monthly contribution to the family and by adopting multiplier of 16, the Tribunal arrived at a sum of Rs.17,92,128/- as total loss of income. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the claimant / the first respondent herein has submitted that the Tribunal while fixing the monthly income of the deceased, has failed to add 50% of the monthly income towards future prospects. In this connection, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Smt.Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ). Therefore, the question of making any deduction in the monthly income of the deceased does not arise. 9. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant / first respondent herein has relied upon the judgment reported in in the case of Vimal Kanwar & others v. Kishore Dan and others, and submitted that that there is no need to deduct any amount, since she is receiving salary from the job, which she has got on compassionate grounds. The relevant portion of the said judgment is usefully extracted hereunder:- "20. ... “Compassionate appointment” can be one of the conditions of service of an employee, if a scheme to that effect is framed by the employer. In case, the employee dies in harness i.e. while in service leaving behind the dependents, one of the dependents may request for compassionate appointment to maintain the family of the deceased employee dies in harness. This cannot be stated to be an advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one’s death and have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned on account of accidental death. Compassionate appointment may have nexus with the death of an employee while in service but it is not necessary that it should have a correlation with the accidental death. Compassionate appointment may have nexus with the death of an employee while in service but it is not necessary that it should have a correlation with the accidental death. An employee dies in harness even in normal course, due to illness and to maintain the family of the deceased one of the dependents may be entitled for compassionate appointment but that cannot be termed as “Pecuniary Advantage” that comes under the periphery of Motor Vehicles Act and any amount received on such appointment is not liable for deduction for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. " As per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the monthly salary of the wife of the deceased which she is receiving from the compassionate appointment, has no correlation to the compensation computed as against the tort-feasor for his negligence on account of the accident. Further, we are of the opinion that the tort-feasor is not contributing anything for the compassionate appointment of the wife of the deceased. Therefore, the tort-feasor is not entitled for any benefit in respect of the salary that the wife of the deceased receives from the compassionate appointment. Hence, there is no need to deduct the wages presently the wife of the deceased is receiving from the job, which she has got on compassionate grounds. 10. Yet another contention that has been made by the learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation is that since the wife of the deceased is receiving pension amount on account of the death of her husband, the said amount is liable to be deducted from the monthly income of the deceased. 11. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant / first respondent that the pension amount is not liable to be deducted from the monthly income of the deceased while calculating the loss of income. In this regard, the learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the very same decision reported in wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court, has held as follows:- " ... 35. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. 35. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the event, viz., accident, which may not take place at all. Similarly, 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. No correlation between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy is received either by the insured or the heirs of the insured on account of the contract with the insurer, for which the insured contributes in the form of premium. It is receivable even by the insured if he lives till maturity after paying all the premiums. In the case of death, the insurer indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contract for the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant not on account of any accidental death but otherwise on the insured's death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the contract, to receive the amount. Similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. though are all a pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no correlation 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 the principle of loss and gain, it has to be on a similar and same plane having nexus, inter se, between them and not to which there is no semblance of any correlation. The insured (deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount which has no correlation to the compensation computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident. The insured (deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount which has no correlation to the compensation computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident. As aforesaid, 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 the fruits of an amount received through contributions of the insured be deducted out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act he receives without any contribution. As we have said, the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount receivable under the life insurance policy is contractual.” It is made clear by the dictum laid down in the above judgment that the pension amount is a pecuniary advantage received on account of one's death and the same has no correlation to the compensation computed as against the tort-feasor for his negligence on account of the accident. Hence, the pension amount is not liable to be deducted from the compensation amount. Therefore, we are not inclined to deduct the pension amount presently the wife of the deceased is receiving, from the compensation amount awarded under the head of loss of income. 12. With regard to income tax, we are of the opinion that though the the monthly income of the deceased fixed at Rs.14,000/-, is subject to the deduction of income tax at 20%. Considering the fact that the Tribunal has failed to add 50% of the monthly income towards future prospects, now, we are not inclined to deduct any amount towards income tax. 13. With regard to the multiplier, since the deceased was aged about 39 years at the time of accident, the Tribunal has applied the correct multiplier of 16. Therefore, there is no need to reduce the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal. 14. For the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 15. In fine, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 16. The Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount, if not so far deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. In fine, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 16. The Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount, if not so far deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the wife of the deceased is permitted to withdraw her share with proportionate interest. As far as the minor son is concerned, the Tribunal is directed to invest the compensation amount payable to him in a nationalised bank under reinvestment scheme till he attains majority. The mother of the minor son is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest periodically once in three months.