JUDGMENT : P.G.M. Patil, J. The claimants being dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 27.10.2012, passed in MVC No.1036/2012, by the Fast Tract Court II and Addl. MACT, Belgaum, have filed this appeal. 2. It is the case of the claimants before the tribunal that, on 31.3.2012, at about 12.15 hours, the deceased Mohan Annappa Bhaivare was proceeding by walk on the left side of Belgaum-Bagalkot road. Near the Air Force Mess bus stop, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-25/F-2311 came from Sambra side, proceeding towards Belgaum, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the deceased. Due to the heavy impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on the vital parts of the body and died on the spot. The deceased was hale and healthy and aged about 64 years. At the time of accident, he was retired from the Air Force Department and was drawing pension of Rs.11,000/- per month, out of which he was maintaining the family members. Therefore, the claimants being the legal representative of the deceased claimed compensation against NWKSRTC (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation' for short). 3. In pursuance of the notices, respondent appeared before the Tribunal and filed written statement by denying the averments as false. He has denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased. He has denied the manner in which the accident occurred and that it is not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. He has further contended that the deceased was in a drunken state of mind and he himself dashed against the bus and therefore, the claim petition be dismissed. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed the issues. 5. In support of their claim petition, claimant No.2 got examined along with one witness and got marked in all 10 documents as Exs.P1 to P10. Respondent-Corporation has not produced any oral or documentary evidence. 6. The learned member of the tribunal after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned judgment, awarding a compensation of Rs.97,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. 7. The claimants being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, have filed this appeal on the grounds that the Tribunal has not awarded meager compensation by deducting the family pension received by petitioner No.1 which is erroneous. 7. The claimants being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, have filed this appeal on the grounds that the Tribunal has not awarded meager compensation by deducting the family pension received by petitioner No.1 which is erroneous. The Tribunal has also not awarded compensation on other heads. The compensation awarded by the other heads is also lower side. 8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 9. The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to "whether the claimants have made out grounds that the Tribunal has erroneously deducted the amount of family pension received by appellant No.1 and therefore, they are entitled for enhancement of the compensation?" 10. The learned counsel for the claimants has relied on the judgment in the case of Vimal Kanwar and Others Vs. Kishore Dan and Others, (2013) 7 SCC 476 and also judgment in the case of Geeta Singh (Smt.) and Others Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Another,2017 AcciCR 96 (All.) and on the basis of the principles stated in these cases submitted that the pecuniary advantage including the family pension received by claimant No.1 cannot be deducted out of compensation and that the same did not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act. 11. In the case of Vimal Kanwar and Others Vs. Kishore Dan and Others the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 21 has held as follows: "21"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 dependents, one of the dependents may request for compassionate appointment to maintain the family of the deceased employee who dies in harness. This cannot be stated to be an advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death and have 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. 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 dependents 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. In the case of Geeta Singh (Smt.) and Others Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Another the Division Bench of Hon'ble Allahabad Court in para 18 held as follows:- "18. Again in Vimal Kanwar and Others. Vs. Kishore Dan and Ors., (2013) 7 SCC 476 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after relying on the judgment in Helen C Rebello (Mrs.)' case (supra), held that the family pension amount cannot be deducted from the income of the deceased at the time of computing compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 13. Therefore, it is a settled point of law that family pension amount cannot be deducted from the income of the deceased at the time of computing compensation under Section 166 of the M.V.Act. In the present case, the Tribunal has held that the wife of the deceased namely, claimant No.1 is getting family pension as shown in Ex.P10-the passbook of the State Bank of India and therefore, there is no question of petitioners having sustained loss of dependency due to the death of the deceased Mohan Annappa Bhaivare, and therefore, they are not entitled for compensation towards loss of dependency. 14. With these observations, the learned member of the Tribunal has not at all awarded any compensation towards loss of dependency. The findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard is erroneous and same is liable to be set aside. The claimants are entitled for compensation towards loss of dependency considering the pension drawn by the deceased by applying the relevant multiplier and deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses. Therefore, it is necessary to reassess the compensation for which the claimants are entitled. The claimants are entitled for compensation towards loss of dependency considering the pension drawn by the deceased by applying the relevant multiplier and deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses. Therefore, it is necessary to reassess the compensation for which the claimants are entitled. On such reassement, the following just compensation as award:- It is not disputed that the deceased was getting pension of Rs.11,000/-p.m., out of which 1/3rd is deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Remaining amount comes to Rs.7,333/-, which has to be multiplied by 12X7 (7,333X12X7=6,15,972.00). Therefore claimants are entitled for compensation towards loss of dependency at Rs.6,15,972.00/-. Claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.70,000/- under the conventional head. Thus, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.6,85,972/- as against the compensation awarded by the tribunal at Rs.97,000/-. Hence, the point for consideration is answered accordingly. 15. In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The claimants-appellants are awarded compensation of Rs.6,85,972/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. The respondent-Corporation is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of six weeks.