JUDGMENT Sanjay Misra & Om Prakash-VII,JJ.: - Heard Sri Vinay Khare, learned counsel for the appellant which is New India Insurance Company Ltd. and Sri R.S. Patel, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent No.1. None appears on behalf of the Respondent No.2 who is owner of the vehicle although notices were issued to him. 2. It is also informed that the Respondent No.2 did not contest the claim petition before the Tribunal. 3. This is a First Appeal From Order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 30.07.2010 passed in M.A.C.P.No.780 of 2009 (Smt. Anuradha Devi Vs. Anil Kumar and another) by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Allahabad. 4. Sri Vinay Khare, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned award for the reason that due to death of Ramesh Chandra Kushwaha his widow Smt. Anuradha had applied for compassionate appointment which is under consideration and she is getting Rs.10,000/- per month as family pension which has not been deducted by the Tribunal while considering the quantum of compensation to be awarded. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs Smt. Kanta Aggarwal and others reported in 2008 (4) AWC 3830 (SC). He has referred to paragraph 12 & 13 of the said judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the claimant-respondent Sri Patel has disputed the submission and has supported the award by stating that the family pension which is being paid to the claimant-respondent was not to be deducted inasmuch as it is a benefit arising out of the death of her husband and is not subject to deduction in proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar & others Vs. Kishore Dan and others, reported in 2013 (7) SCC 476 . 6. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar & others Vs. Kishore Dan and others, reported in 2013 (7) SCC 476 . 6. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. The facts of the case are that on 20.02.2009 at about 3: 15 PM the deceased Ramesh Chandra Kushwaha alongwith his friend was proceeding on the motorcycle No.UP-78-AX 5787 to his residence when a Tata Magic Vehicle No.UP-70 BT 1462 came from the opposite direction which was being driven rashly and negligently and hit the motorcycle from its right side due to which Ramesh Chandra Kushwaha received serious injuries and after treatment at Jeevan Jyoti Hospital, Allahabad he was declared dead. At the time of his death it was claimed that he was 44 years of age and was a government servant working in Health Department of the State of U.P. earning a salary approximately Rs.30,000/- per month. 7. The Tribunal framed issues with respect to the factum of the accident and rash and negligent driving of the Tata Magic as also whether the said vehicle was insured and its driver had a valid driving license. 8. The Tribunal on Issue No.1 recorded a finding that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Magic and it was insured on the date of accident with the New India Insurance Company Ltd.. It was also found that the driver of the Tata Magic was holding a valid driving license. On the issue of amount of compensation the Tribunal on the basis of certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital, Allahabad dated 03.11.2009 found that in the month of January, 2009 the salary paid to the deceased was Rs.24,470/- of which Rs.2000/- was deducted toward GPF and Rs.200/- was deducted as contribution to GIS. It was found that on the basis of the salary certificate the deceased did not come within the ambit of the Income Tax Act during the financial year 2007-08. It detremined Rs.2,93,004/- as his annual income. 9. Having done so the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of the amount i.e. Rs.92,668/- for his personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 13 has come to a figure of Rs.24,009,368. It detremined Rs.2,93,004/- as his annual income. 9. Having done so the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of the amount i.e. Rs.92,668/- for his personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 13 has come to a figure of Rs.24,009,368. It has awarded Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.5000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.2500/- for loss of estate thus awarding a total sum of Rs.24,18,868. 10. Since the vehicle was duly insured the compensation was directed to be paid by the appellant insurance company alongwith 6% simple interest from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 05.10.2009 upto the date of its payment. It has apportioned the compensation by providing that the appellant no.1 being widow of the deceased would be entitled to 50% of the amount of which half will be paid to her and other half will be secured in a fixed deposit account of a nationalized bank for the period of 5 years. The other 50% of the compensation was awarded to the minor son Kumar Rahul and minor daughter Kumari Shraddha in ratio of 20% each and 10% was to be paid to the mother Shakuntala Devi. The compensation of the minors was retained in an interest bearing account of a nationalized bank till they attain the age of majority. 11. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant on the question of deduction of the family pension which is being drawn by the appellant appears to be for the reason that it is a pecuniary advantage which is liable to be deducted at the time of calculation of the compensation. In the case of Vimal Kanwar (supra) the Supreme Court has considered the very same issue relating to the amounts provided to the claimants under the head of provident fund, pension and life insurance receivable by the claimant on account of the death of the victim. 12. It has been held in paragraph 18 and 19 of the said judgment that such pecuniary advantage received by the claimants on account of the death of the deceased do not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act so as to term it as a pecuniary advantage liable for deduction. 13. Paragraph 18 & 19 of the judgment are quoted hereunder: - "18. 13. Paragraph 18 & 19 of the judgment are quoted hereunder: - "18. 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." 19. The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before this Court in Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) and others vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (1999) 1 SCC 90 . 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: "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. 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." 14. As such the reliance placed by learned counsel for the appellant on the decision in the case of Bhakra Beas Management Board (supra) could not apply to the present case for the reason that admittedly the appellant is not getting any pecuniary advantage out of a compassionate appointment which has not been made as yet. Hence when the claimant-respondent has not been given any compassionate appointment and she is not getting any pecuniary advantage on that score the reliance placed by the appellant in the case of Bhakra Beas Management Board (Supra) appears to be premature. 15. Hence when the claimant-respondent has not been given any compassionate appointment and she is not getting any pecuniary advantage on that score the reliance placed by the appellant in the case of Bhakra Beas Management Board (Supra) appears to be premature. 15. However, we make it clear that since there has been no compassionate appointment of the claimant-respondent we are not entering into the issue whether such advantage if any would be deductable for the purpose of calculation of compensation in this case. 16. Clearly, the Family Pension being received by the claimant-respondent as a widow of the deceased is not liable to be deducted while computing the compensation. The submission to the contrary has no merit. 17. The impugned award does not suffer from any error when it has rightly not deducted the amount of monthly family pension received by the claimant as a consequence of the death of her husband in the accident in question. 18. The appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 19. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. 20. No order as to costs.