JUDGMENT : This appeal for enhancement of compensation is directed against the award dated 05.09.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belonia, South Tripura, in Case No. T.S. (MAC) 17 of 2012 whereby, he awarded a sum of Rs.95,000/- in favour of the claimants. 2. To say the least, the award discloses that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal had scant knowledge of the provisions relating to grant of compensation in death cases. 3. The undisputed facts are that the deceased was aged about 69 years at the time of his death. He was a pensioner and his sole income was from family pension of Rs.5,623/- which was getting at the time of his death. The learned Tribunal held that after his death, the wife of the deceased was already getting Rs.3,468/- and since the difference was about the same as deduction of one-third he held that no financial loss had been caused to the widow. He further went on to hold that the claimant would only be entitled to the loss on account of no fault liability and according to him this should be assessed at Rs.80,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/-. He added a sum of Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses and awarded Rs.95,000/-. 4. The learned Tribunal has made a grave error of deducting the amount of pension. This is not permissible especially in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Helen C. Rebello and others vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another, (1999) 1 SCC 90 , wherein the Apex Court held as follows :- “33. Thus, it would not include that which the claimant receives on account of other forms of deaths, which he would have received even apart from accidental death. Thus, such. pecuniary advantage would have no corelation to the accidental death for which compensation is computed. Any amount received or receivable not only on account of the accidental death but that which would have come to the claimant even otherwise, could not be construed to be the "pecuniary advantage", liable for deduction. However, where the employer insures his employee, as against injury or death arising out of an accident, any amount received out of such insurance on the happening of such incident may be an amount liable for deduction. However, where the employer insures his employee, as against injury or death arising out of an accident, any amount received out of such insurance on the happening of such incident may be an amount liable for deduction. However, our legislature has taken note of such contingency, through the proviso of Section 95. Under it the liability of the insurer is excluded in respect of injury or death, arising out of and in the course of employment of an employee. 34. This is based on the principle that the claimant for the happening of the same incidence may not gain twice from two sources. This, it is excluded thus, either through the wisdom of the legislature or through the principle of loss and gain through deduction not to give gain to the claimant twice arising from the same transaction, viz., the same accident. It is significant to record here in both the sources, viz., either under the Motor Vehicles Act or from the employer, the compensation receivable by the claimant is either statutory or through the security of the employer securing for his employee but in both cases he receives the amount without his contribution. How thus an amount earned out of one's labour or contribution towards one's wealth, savings, etc. either for himself or for his family, which such person knows, under the law, has to go to his heirs after his death either by succession or under a Will could be said to be the “pecuniary gain” only on account of one's accidental death. This, of course, is a pecuniary gain but how this is equitable or could be balanced out of the amount to be received as compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act. There is no co-relation between the two amounts. Not even remotely. How can an amount of loss and gain of one contract be made applicable to the loss and gain of another contract. Similarly, how an amount receivable under a statute has any corelation with an amount earned by an individual. Principle of loss and gain has to be on the same plane within the same sphere, of course, subject to the contract to the contrary or any provisions of law. 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. Principle of loss and gain has to be on the same plane within the same sphere, of course, subject to the contract to the contrary or any provisions of law. 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 corelation 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. 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 corelation 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 corelation. 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 corelation. The insured (deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount which has no corelation 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.” 5. The principle is that while balancing the losses occurring out of the death and the advantage thereto, the advantages which may occur to the family members because of some prudent financial steps taken by the deceased like obtaining a Life Insurance Policy or even arrangements between an employer and an employee regarding payment of pension are not to be taken into consideration. These payments will be made to the employee regardless of the fact whether the death was an accident or otherwise. Even in case of a natural death the heirs would be entitled to such pension. Therefore, this pension cannot be deducted because the deceased has died because of an accident. Even with regard to deductions being made for example provident fund or deductions for pension schemes etc. this cannot be deducted while calculating the income of the deceased. This is because these would have any way accrued to the State and would be loss to the State. 6. The deceased definitely had an income of more than Rs.40,000/- per annum. Even with regard to deductions being made for example provident fund or deductions for pension schemes etc. this cannot be deducted while calculating the income of the deceased. This is because these would have any way accrued to the State and would be loss to the State. 6. The deceased definitely had an income of more than Rs.40,000/- per annum. If his income had been taken at Rs.40,000/- per annum then even under Schedule 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act which applies when a petition is filed on account of no fault liability under Section 163A of the Act, the compensation payable would have been Rs.40,000/- x 5 = Rs.2,00,000/- - 33.3% which would amount to Rs.1,33,400/- + Rs.2,000/- + Rs.5,000/- + Rs.2,500 i.e. Rs.1,42,900/- or Rs.1,43,000/-. Under no stretch of imagination can compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act be less than what is the amount payable under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. This clearly shows the fallacy in the reasoning of the learned Tribunal. Therefore, I accept the calculations made under Section 163A but increase the amount for loss of consortium and funeral expenses to Rs.50,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively and therefore, award an amount of Rs.1,33,400/- + Rs.70,000/- comes to Rs.2,03,400/- which is rounded off to Rs.2,03,500/-. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the compensation is enhanced from 95,000/- to Rs.2,03,400/- i.e. by Rs.1,08,500/-. The insurance company has already satisfied the award of the Tribunal. It is, therefore, directed to deposit the enhanced amounts of Rs.1,08,500/- (Rupees One lakh eight thousand five hundred) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till payment/deposit of the awarded amount in the Registry of this Court within 3(three) months from today. Obviously, the insurance company shall be entitled to adjust the amounts, if any, which it has already paid or deposited. This entire amount shall be paid only to the widow because none of the other children were either dependant on the deceased or any other concerned. 8. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 9. Send down the lower court records forthwith.