ORDER Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the M.V. Act") appellants/claimants have challenged the award dated 25-9-2004 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short "the Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 23/2003. 2. The facts, briefly stated are as under:-- "2.1. Appellants/claimants, being the wife and children of deceased-Mohammad Jaleel Qureshi filed Claim Case No. 23/2003 under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, seeking compensation stating inter alia that on the date of accident, i.e., on 2-7-2003, Mohammad Jaleel Qureshi was going from Shanti Nagar Rajnandgaon to Lakholi in his Luna bearing Registration No. CG-08/ZF/0232. On the way, a Bus bearing Registration No. CG-07/ZA/0279, driven by respondent/driver-Gokul @ Makhan Das rashly and negligently, dashed the Luna of Mohammad Jaleel Qureshi. The said Bus was owned by respondent/owner-Gayaram Tamrakar and insured with respondent/insurer-New India Insurance Co. On account of said dash/hit, Mohammad Jaleel Qureshi fell down from his Luna and died on the spot. At the time of accident, deceased was aged about 54 years and earning Rs.9,000 per month as Government Teacher. Appellants/claimants claimed compensation to the extent of Rs.10,68,000 to the respondents jointly and severally. 2.2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed their joint written statement stating inter alia that on the date of accident, bus was duly insured with the Insurance Co., therefore, Insurance Co. is liable to make payment of compensation. Respondent No. 3/Insurance Co. filed his separate written statement stating inter alia that on the date of accident, vehicle in question was being plied in violation of terms of policy of insurance, therefore, Insurance Co. is not liable to make payment of compensation. 2.3. On close scrutiny of the material available on record, the Claims Tribunal held that on the date of accident, deceased was aged about 54 years and earning Rs. 9,672 per month as per Exh. P-7, salary slip of the deceased. Claimants had got monthly pension of Rs. 4,500, therefore, loss of monthly income of deceased was taken as Rs. 5,172. As the deceased was aged about 54 years, therefore, if he ' alive, he will work only for 6 years, as age of superannuation is 60 years, loss of f yearly income of deceased taken as Rs. Claimants had got monthly pension of Rs. 4,500, therefore, loss of monthly income of deceased was taken as Rs. 5,172. As the deceased was aged about 54 years, therefore, if he ' alive, he will work only for 6 years, as age of superannuation is 60 years, loss of f yearly income of deceased taken as Rs. 62,064, and by applying the multiplier of 6 and deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses, annual dependency of appellants/claimants taken as Rs. 2,48,256. In addition, Rs. 5,000 towards loss of consortium, Rs. 5,000 towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses were also awarded. Thus, appellants/claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs. 2,60,256 with 6% interest." 3. Mr. Dheeraj Wankhede, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the Claims Tribunal has committed legal error in deducting the amount of pension, i.e., Rs. 4,500 being paid to the appellants on the death of Mohammad Jaleel Qureshi. He would further submit that the multiplier applied by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side and it be enhanced suitably. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Anand Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3/Insurance Co. supported the award stating inter alia that the impugned award is strictly in accordance with law and no interference is called for in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the M.V. Act. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the rival submissions and have perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. 6. Now the question, which requires consideration by Court is whether pension receivable by the claimants come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "pecuniary advantage" liable for deduction? 7. The aforesaid question fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC, (1999) 1 SCC 90 , in which, it has been J held that provident fund, pension, insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. 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 statue occasioned only on account of accidental death and such an amount will not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "pecuniary advantage" liable for deduction. 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 statue occasioned only on account of accidental death and such an amount will not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "pecuniary advantage" liable for deduction. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads thus:-- "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 I receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No co-relation 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 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 insurer indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contracts for the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant not on account of any accidental death but otherwise on insured's death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the contract, to receive the amount. Similarly any case, 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 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. though are all a pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have 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 the principle of loss and gain, it has to be on similar and same plane having nexus inter so between them and not to which, there is no semblance of any co-relation. The insured (deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount has no co-relation to the compensation computed as against tort-feasor for his negligence on account of accident. As aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation under the Act is on account of the injury of death without making any contribution towards it then how can 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 received under the life insurance policy is contractual." 8. The recent decision of Supreme Court in Vimal Kanwar and others v. Kishore Dan and others (2013) 7 SCC 476 , proposition laid down in Helen C. Rebello (supra), has been followed, and it has been held that the amount as to pension, receivable by the claimants on account of one's death, will not come within the periphery of Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "pecuniary advantage" liable for deduction. 9. In view of the aforesaid decisions of Supreme Court, deduction of amount of pension by the Claims Tribunal while computing the monthly income of deceased appears to be erroneous, it deserves to be set aside. 10. The determination of the aforesaid question, brings me to next question that is re-computation of the compensation, which claimants are entitled. Having examined the documents exhibited and the oral evidence adduced before the Claims Tribunal with regard to compensation, I am of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded under the various heads deserves to be enhanced in the following manner:-- S.No. Head Calculation (i) Annual income of deceased Rs. 1,16,064 (ii) 10% deducted towards income tax (1,16,064 – 11, 606) Rs. 1,16,064 (ii) 10% deducted towards income tax (1,16,064 – 11, 606) Rs. 1,04,458 (iii) 1/4 th of (ii) to be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased, as per Sarla Verma (Smt.) and other Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(4) MPHT 99 (SC) = (2009) 6 SCC 121 (1,04,458 – 26,114) Rs. 78, 344 (iv) Compensation after multiplier of 8 is applied (78,344 x 8) Rs.6,26,752 (v) Loss of consortium Rs. 25,000 (vi) Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000 (vii) Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000 (viii) Loss of estate Rs. 5,000 Total compensation Rs. 6,76,752 11. Thus, the compensation of Rs. 2,60,256 granted by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced by Rs. 4,16,496. The appellants/claimants shall also get simple interest on the amount of Rs. 4,16,496 at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim application before the Claims Tribunal till realisation of the full compensation. The amount of Rs. 4,16,496 along with interest shall be deposited in the Claims Tribunal within a period of 3 months from today. Rest of the amount awarded shall remain intact. The depositor shall be the same as ordered in the impugned award. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.