COMMON JUDGMENT MR. R. SUBBIAH, J. 1. Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Judge) of Vridhachalam at Cuddalore District, in M.C.O.P. No. 372 of 2005 on 6.11.2009, the insurance company has filed the appeal in C.M.A. No. 1992 of 2010. 2. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of the compensation awarded by the said Tribunal, the wife and minor daughter of the deceased Asokan, have filed the appeal in C.M.A. No. 3145 of 2013. 3. Since both the appeals arise out of the same award, these two appeals are disposed of by way of a common judgment. 4. The brief facts are, that on 16.9.2005 at about 7.45 p.m., when the deceased Asokan was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No. TN 20AY 4128 along with one Venkatesan at Athipattu Pudunagar Bridge, an Ashok Leyland trailor bearing Registration No. TN-28K-8079 proceeding from the opposite direction, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said Asokan and thus, caused the accident. In that accident, the said Asokan had lost his life. Alleging that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the trailor, the mother of the deceased has filed a claim petition as against the owner of the vehicle, insurance company and also impleading the wife and minor daughter of the deceased as respondents 3 and 4 and claimed compensation of a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-. 5. Resisting the claim petition, the insurance company filed counter affidavit denying the age, occupation and income of the deceased Asokan. It was also stated that the driver of the trailor was not responsible for the accident and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 6. To substantiate the claim, the mother of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1. One V. Jayaram, who was working as Superintendent of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was examined as P.W.2 and one Lakshmanan, Contract Labour was examined as P.W.3 and one Rajendran was examined as P.W.4. On the side of the claimant, Exhibits P-1 to P.6 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no evidence was adduced. 7. The Tribunal after going through the 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 trailor. On the side of the claimant, Exhibits P-1 to P.6 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no evidence was adduced. 7. The Tribunal after going through the 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 trailor. By coming to such a conclusion, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 19,18,360/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum as against the claim of Rs. 50,00,000/-. The break up details of the amount awarded by the Tribunal, are as follows: Questioning the said quantum of compensation, the insurance company has filed the appeal in C.M.A. No. 1992 of 2010. Seeking enhancement of the same, the wife and minor daughter of the deceased have filed the appeal in C.M.A. No. 3145 of 2013. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company has submitted the following contentions: (i) After the death of the said Asokan, his wife got a job on compassionate grounds and she is receiving wages from the said job. In such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have deducted the monthly wages that she is receiving from the job on compassionate grounds. (ii) The wife of the deceased is also receiving the pension amount of Rs. 6,280/- per month on the death of the her husband, the deceased Asokan and the said amount is also liable to be deducted from the monthly income of the deceased. (iii) The Tribunal has not deducted any amount towards income tax. Hence, necessary deduction has to be made from the compensation amount. 9. In support of the said contention, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company relied on the decision in Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Smt. Kanta Aggarwal and Others 2008 (2) TN MAC 170 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 3118 : LNIND 2008 SC 1327 : (2008) 6 MLJ 604. By relying on the said decision, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that necessary deduction has to be made from the compensation amount by taking into consideration the compassionate appointment provided to the wife of the deceased and also the pension amount received by the wife of the deceased. 10. By relying on the said decision, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that necessary deduction has to be made from the compensation amount by taking into consideration the compassionate appointment provided to the wife of the deceased and also the pension amount received by the wife of the deceased. 10. On the other hand, by answer to the said contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the wife and minor daughter of the deceased has placed reliance upon the judgment in Vimal Kanwar and Others v. Kishore Dan and Others LNIND 2013 SC 528, 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. 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. 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. 11. Yet another contention that was raised by the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company is that since the wife of the deceased is receiving pension amount of Rs. 6,280/- on account of the death of her husband, the said amount is liable to be deducted from the monthly income of the deceased. To deny the said contention, learned counsel appearing for the wife and minor daughter of the deceased placed reliance upon the very same decision reported in Vimal Kanwar and Others v. Kishore Dan and Others (supra), 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Further, learned counsel appearing for the wife and minor daughter of the deceased has submitted that at the time of death, the deceased Asokan was receiving a sum of Rs. 21,440/- as monthly salary, but the Tribunal has wrongly fixed his monthly salary as Rs. 11,435/- based on Exhibit P-6. The salary received by the deceased from 1.9.2005 to 16.9.2005 was mentioned as Rs. 11,435/- in Exhibit P-6 and in the very same certificate, the monthly salary was clearly mentioned as Rs. 21,440/-. But, the Tribunal, while relying upon Exhibit P-6, by oversight, fixed the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs. 11,435/- instead of Rs. 21,440/-, which resulted in awarding an inadequate compensation under the head of loss of income. 13. On a perusal of the entire records, we find that in Exhibit P-6, the monthly salary received by the deceased upto 16.9.2005 i.e., from 1.9.2005 to 16.9.2005 was mentioned as Rs. 11,435/-. However, the Tribunal instead of taking into consideration the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs. 21,440/-, has erroneously fixed a sum of Rs. 11,435/- as monthly income and thereafter, by adding 50% of the amount towards future prospects, fixed a sum of Rs. 17,152/- as monthly income. The monthly income of the deceased at the time of accident was Rs. 21,440/-, which is supported by Exhibit P-6 and also by the evidence of P.W.2, who was working as Superintendent in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Therefore, by fixing a sum of Rs. 21,440/- as monthly income, the amount awarded by the Tribunal has to be re-assessed. 14. Therefore, the amount under the head of loss of dependency has to be calculated only by taking the monthly income as Rs. 21,440/-. If a sum of Rs. 21,440/- is taken into consideration as monthly income of the deceased, 50% of the said amount viz., Rs. 10,720/- can be added towards future prospects. If so added, it works out to Rs. 32,160/-. We are of the opinion that 30% of the amount is liable to be deducted towards income tax. If so deducted, the balance amount comes to Rs. 22,512/-. 10,720/- can be added towards future prospects. If so added, it works out to Rs. 32,160/-. We are of the opinion that 30% of the amount is liable to be deducted towards income tax. If so deducted, the balance amount comes to Rs. 22,512/-. The annual loss of dependency works out to Rs. 2,70,144/- (Rs. 22,512/- x 12). The deceased was aged about 39 years at the time of accident and hence, the correct multiplier that has to be adopted in this case is 15. If multiplier 15 is adopted, the loss of dependency works out to Rs. 40,52,160/-. If 1/3rd amount is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, then the balance amount works out to Rs. 27,01,440/-, which could be awarded as just and proper compensation under the head of loss of dependency. Hence, a sum of Rs. 18,93,360/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of dependency is hereby enhanced to Rs. 27,01,440/-. The break up details of the same are as follows: Except this modification, the amount awarded under the other heads remains unaltered. 15. In the result, the appeal preferred by the insurance company in C.M.A. No. 1992 of 2010 is dismissed and the appeal preferred by the wife and minor daughter of the deceased in C.M.A. No. 3145 of 2013 is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 16. The insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount of Rs. 8,08,080/- with proportionate interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On deposit of enhanced amount of Rs. 8,08,080/-, the wife of the deceased is entitled to Rs. 3,08,080/- and the minor daughter is entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- with proportionate interest and the wife of the deceased is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with proportionate interest. As far as the minor daughter is concerned, the Tribunal is directed to invest the enhanced compensation amount payable to her in a nationalised bank under reinvestment scheme till she attains majority. The mother of the minor daughter is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest periodically once in three months. Appeal dismissed.