JUDGMENT : Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. C.A.N. No. 8545 of 2012 has been filed by the appellant for stay of operation of the award of the Claims Tribunal. By an order dated 12.9.2012 interim stay was granted. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have entered appearance and they have filed C.A.N. No. 11563 of 2013 for withdrawal of the award amount deposited by the appellant in compliance with the terms of the interim stay order. When the C.A. Ns. were taken up for hearing, Mr. Mondal appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submitted that the appeal involved a short issue: whether the Claims Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the monthly family pension the respondent No. 1 was receiving. He invited the court to decide the issue and dispose of the appeal dispensing with all formalities. Mr. Pahari appearing for the appellant has accepted the submission and agreed to argue the appeal for final disposal. Thus we took up the appeal itself for final hearing. 2. The award of the Claims Tribunal is dated 2.7.2012. The respondent No. 1's husband (Gopinath Das) was killed in a motor vehicle accident on 20.11.2009 at 11.15 a.m. He was survived by the respondent No. 1, two sons and a daughter. Claiming compensation the respondent No. 1 filed the requisite application before the Claims Tribunal under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 3. The insurance company contended that the respondent No. 1 getting family pension on the death of her husband was not entitled to any compensation. On the other hand, the respondent No. 1 contended that neither the receipt of family pension took away her right to claim compensation, nor was the amount to be deducted from the amount of compensation found payable. 4. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the respondent No. 1, determined the total payable amount at Rs. 3,58,880 and directed distribution of the amount amongst the victim's heirs according to law. It also ordered the insurance company to pay 9 per cent per annum interest on the amount from the date of filing of the application for compensation till the date of payment. 5. In support of his contention that the Claims Tribunal was under an obligation to take into consideration the family pension the respondent No. 1 was receiving, Mr. Pahari has relied on the following decisions: The Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd. Vs. 5. In support of his contention that the Claims Tribunal was under an obligation to take into consideration the family pension the respondent No. 1 was receiving, Mr. Pahari has relied on the following decisions: The Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd. Vs. K.I. Bindu and Others, (2005) 8 SCC 473 Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. Smt. Kanta Aggarwal and Others, (2008) 11 SCC 366 and Ramprasad Balmiki Vs. Anil Kumar Jain and Others, (2008) 9 SCC 492 . 6. Mr. Mondal, on the other hand, has relied on the following decisions: Mrs. Helen C. Rebello and Others Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. and Another, (1999) 1 SCC 90 ; Lal Dei and Others Vs. Himachal Road Transport, (2007) 8 SCC 319 ; Vimal Kanwar and Others Vs. Kishore Dan and Others, (2013) 7 SCC 476 ; Smt. Mousumi Hansda and Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co Ltd. and Another, (2001) ACJ 1375 ; and Binapani Ghosh and Others Vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited and Another, (2013) ACJ 2525 7. After going through the above noted authorities cited to us, we are of the opinion that in view of the law clearly laid down by the Supreme Court in Helen C. Rebello following which the decisions in Lal Dei, Vimal Kanwar, Mausumi Hansda and Binapani Ghosh (supra) were given, there can be absolutely no doubt that the Claims Tribunal was right in refusing to take into consideration the family pension the respondent No. 1 was receiving. 8. Helen's ratio is this. An amount received or receivable by the claimant not only on account of the motor accident concerned, but would have come to the claimant even otherwise, is not a pecuniary advantage to be taken into consideration by the Claims Tribunal while adjudicating a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 9. In view of the principle stated in Helen C. Rebello (supra) only a pecuniary advantage having a correlation with the consequences of the accident can affect the claimant's right to get compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In this case the respondent No. 1 started receiving family pension not because her husband was killed in the accident. She would have received it even if he had died a natural death. 10. The decision in Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corpn. Ltd. (supra) was given without considering Helen (supra). In this case the respondent No. 1 started receiving family pension not because her husband was killed in the accident. She would have received it even if he had died a natural death. 10. The decision in Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corpn. Ltd. (supra) was given without considering Helen (supra). The decision in Bhakra Beas Management Board (supra) was given referring to Helen (supra), but not stating any contrary view, probably because it was a case of employment obtained by a claimant on compassionate grounds. And the decision in Ramprasad Balmiki (supra) was given without considering both Helen and Lal Dei (supra). 11. This being the position, we are of the considered opinion that the law laid down by the Apex Court in Helen (supra) should apply to the case and that the Claims Tribunal rightly applied the principle to the case. The Claims Tribunal was fully justified in rejecting the appellant's contention. The family pension amount the respondent No. 1 was receiving was not to be deducted from the amount of compensation as well. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the only issue involved in the appeal. For these reasons, we dismiss the appeal. The C.A.N. for stay shall be treated as disposed of. The C.A.N. for withdrawal is disposed of permitting the victim's heirs to withdraw the amount with accrued interest without any security. The Registrar General shall take steps for payment at once. If any amount remains payable, the heirs will be free to execute the award to that extent. No costs.