JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant Insurance Company against the judgment cum award dated 7.9.2013 passed by earned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur in M.A.C. No. 71/2011 whereby the claimants respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 were awarded a total compensation of Rs. 24,19,269/- upon the death of Shri Manohar Lal Pandya. 2. The facts in brief are that Shri Manohar Lal Pandya, a driver working in the Public Health and Engineering Department of the State Government was going on his motor cycle on 1.6.2010 at 10 O'clock in the morning in his Village Patapur. It was alleged that a Maruti Van bearing registration No. RJ 12.UA.525 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Vishal, owned by Vijendra and insured with appellant Insurance Company, collided with the motor cycle of Manohar Lal causing him severe injuries. An F.I.R. was registered in relation to the accident wherein after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against Vishal in the concerned Court. Manohar Lal expired on 6.6.2010 as a result of the injuries. 3. The respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 being the dependents of Manohar Lal filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act praying for total compensation of Rs. 75,56,000/-. The respondents No. 1 and 2 the owner and driver of the Maruti Van involved in the accident, filed a written statement taking a plea of rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself being the cause of the accident. The appellant Insurance Company filed a written statement claiming that; the vehicle No. RJ 12.UA.525 involved in the accident was insured by it but the driver thereof was not having a valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle; no accident occurred as claimed by the claimants with the vehicle insured by the appellant insurance Company and that the compensation claim was filed claiming a highly exaggerated amount. 4. The Tribunal framed the usual issues regarding the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Maruti Van No. RJ 12.UA.525 being the cause of the accident; the entitlement of the Insurance Company to be exonerated on the basis of the defences and objections raised by it; the entitlement of the claimants to receive the compensation and if so, from whom; and the relief. Two witnesses were examined by the claimants in support of their claim application. Two witnesses were examined by the claimants in support of their claim application. None of the respondents chose to lead any evidence. 5. The learned Tribunal held that the driver of the Maruti Van drove the Maruti Van in a rash and negligent fashion and turned it suddenly on to the wrong side causing the accident. Yatin Joshi AW-2 claimed to be an eye-witness and deposed that the rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Van driver was the cause of the accident. The respondents though represented did not rebut this evidence. The Tribunal relied upon the site inspection plan prepared during the investigation and relying on the principle of res-ipsa-loquitor, held that the driver of the Maruti Van drove the vehicle rashly and negligently caused the accident and the resultant death of Manohar Lai. The issue was thus decided in favour of the claimants and against the non-claimants. 6. Shri Johari submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant to be solely rash, negligent and responsible for causing the accident. As per him, the deceased also equally contributed to the accident and thus, the award should have been reduced by applying the principle of contributory negligence. 7. The only contention which was advanced by Shri Sanjeev Johari attributing the rashness and negligence driving to the deceased himself was that on the three-way crossing, the deceased was driving the motor cycle at a speed of 50 kms./p.h. There is no material on record to substantiate this contention. If at ail the Insurance Company wanted to substantiate this plea, any eye-witness or at least the driver of the offending vehicle could have been examined to prove this fact. As has been observed above, no such step was taken by the Insurance Company. 8. Having gone through the impugned judgment, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver being the cause of the accident is just and proper and is based on appropriate appreciation of evidence. 9. A half hearted challenge was made by Shri Johari to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9. A half hearted challenge was made by Shri Johari to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. I have considered the contention advanced by Shri Johari in this regard and am of the opinion that the Tribunal has assessed the compensation awardable to the claimants in a fair and just fashion. The deceased was a Government servant. Thus, there cannot be any dispute about the salary, which he was drawing. The multiplier of 11 was rightly applied by the Tribunal looking to the age of the deceased being 53 years and is in consonance with the view expressed in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 . The deduction of l/3ri towards personal needs and expenses is also just and proper because the claimants are three in number. In the opinion of this Court, the Tribunal erred in not applying the future prospects and consequent rise in income whilst assessing the compensation and this omission made by the Tribunal rather benefits the Insurance Company. In the opinion of this Court, the deceased being employed in the State Government definitely had bright chances of increase in the emoluments. The dearness allowance of the Government employees is raised on the average by 10% every year. The deceased still had 5-6 years of service to go and thus, would have gotten rise of 60% in the salary drawn merely by the addition of dearness allowance. The possibility of the Seventh Pay Commission being applied and thereby a significant rise in the salary being effected cannot be lost sight of. Thus, the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding that no rise in income by future prospects could be added to the earnings of the deceased unjustly favours the appellant Insurance Company. Therefore, the challenge made to the award on the ground of quantum is unsustainable. 10. Shri Johari also tried to assail the award on the ground that the son of the deceased has been given appointment on compassionate basis and family pension is also being paid to the claimants, therefore, the award should be reduced. This argument also need not hold this Court for a moment. 11. This Court in the case of Metri Sharma (Smt.) and Ors. v. Rakesh Kumar and Ors. This argument also need not hold this Court for a moment. 11. This Court in the case of Metri Sharma (Smt.) and Ors. v. Rakesh Kumar and Ors. reported in 2014(1) DNJ (Raj.) 230 considered the issue in detail and after placing heavy reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar and Ors. v. Kishore Dan and Ors. reported in 2013 ACJ 1441 and while dealing with the judgment of Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Kanta Aggarwal and Ors. reported in 2008 ACJ 2373 , held as under:- "11. The issues of deduction raised are no more res integra. In Vimal Kanwar (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the said issues held and observed as under:-. "19. The first issue is "whether provident fund, pension and insurance receivable by claimants come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as 'pecuniary advantage' liable for deduction?" The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before this Court in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Trans. Corpn., 1999 ACJ 10 (SC) . In the said case, this Court 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 statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. Such an amount will not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as 'pecuniary advantage' liable for deduction. The following was the observation and finding of this Court:- "(37) 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. 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 amount 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, 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 all are 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." 20. 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." 20. The second issue is "whether the salary receivable by the claimant on compassionate appointment comes within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as 'periphery advantage' liable for deduction?" '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 dependants, one of the dependants may request for compassionate appointment to maintain the family of the deceased employee who died in harness. This cannot be stated to be an advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death and has 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 dependants 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." 12. So far as the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhakra Beas Management Ltd. (supra) is concerned, the issue before the Court in a fatal accident case was whether the benefits which claimant receives on account of death of her husband have to be deducted while computing the compensation and, the Court observed that the benefits, which the claimant receives on account of death or injury have to be duly considered. The law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vimla Kanwar (supra) takes into consideration the fact as to whether the compassionate appointment comes within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as 'pecuniary advantage' and is liable for deduction and on consideration, it has been held that the same cannot be said to be pecuniary advantage so as to come within the periphery of Motor Vehicles Act and the said amount was not liable for deduction for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act." 13. Thus, it is clear that the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar (supra) answers the issue raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company to the fullest and beyond all manner of doubt. It was in unequivocal terms held in the said case that the salary received pursuant to compassionate appointment cannot be covered within the meaning of 'pecuniary advantage' when compensation is sought under the Motor Vehicles Act under the head of statutory liability.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that this appeal is without any merit and is hereby rejected as such.Stay petition is also rejected.Appeal dismissed. *******