JUDGMENT Alka Sarin, J. - The present appeal has been filed by the insurance company challenging the award dated 18/09/2017 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar, allowing the claim petition filed by the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein. 2. The brief facts necessary to be noticed for adjudication of the present appeal are that the claimants Neelam Kumari, widow and the other claimants filed the claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation to the tune of Rs. 50 lakhs on account of death of Ram Krishan Singh. As per the version of the claimants, on 01/07/2016, Ram Krishan Singh along with claimant No.1 Neelam, Kumari, i.e., his wife was coming from Una towards Shiwalik Avenue Nangal on scooter bearing registration No.HP-20B 3720. Ram Krishan is stated to have been driving the scooter with proper care and caution on the left side of the road. One Mahesh Kumar son of Jagdev Singh was following them on a motorcycle bearing registration No.HP-20-D-2474. When they reached near Shiwalik Avenue on Una-Nangal road at about 11:45 AM, Ram Krishan gave the indicator of the scooter to turn towards Shiwalik Avenue, just then Kapil Chauhan, who was driving a Toyota Etios car bearing registration No.CH-01-AR-6264 rashly and negligently and without blowing any horn struck against the scooter of Ram Krishan Singh, as a result of which both the riders of the scooter fell on the road and received multiple injuries. Both the riders of the scooter were taken to BBMB Hospital where the doctors declared Ram Krishan Singh as 'brought dead'. His post mortem was conducted on 01/07/2016 itself. The accident was witnessed by Mahesh Kumar on whose statement FIR No.100 dated 01/07/2016, under sections 279, 337, 304-A, 427 IPC, was registered at police station Nangal. It was stated in the claim petition that the deceased was an ex-serviceman aged 69 years and his monthly income was Rs.30,000 on account of pension. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, in the claim petition, contested the petition by filing the written statement pleading that the accident occurred due to the negligence of Ram Krishan Singh, who was driving the scooter in a rash and negligent manner. It was further pleaded that the Toyota Etios car bearing registration No.CH-01-AR-6264 was owned by respondent No.1 and was insured with respondent No.3 (appellant herein). It was further pleaded that the Toyota Etios car bearing registration No.CH-01-AR-6264 was owned by respondent No.1 and was insured with respondent No.3 (appellant herein). It was further stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving license at the time of the accident. 4. The insurance company, appellant herein, also contested the claim on the ground that the accident did not take place and further that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid license at the time of the accident. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and am of the considered opinion that the present appeal, which has been preferred by the insurance company, must fail. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company has assailed the findings of the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal erred in not deducting the amount being received as pension by the deceased from the dependency of the claimants. This was the only argument urged by the counsel for the appellant in the present appeal before this Court. He has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shashi Sharma and Ors., (2016) 9 SCC 627 , to support his argument. 7. Their Lordships of the Apex Court in the case of Sebastiani Lakra and Ors. vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr., (2018) AIR SC 5034 , while deciding a matter concerning adjustment of pecuniary advantages, received by heirs, in compensation, have held as under:- "12. The law is well settled that deductions cannot be allowed from the amount of compensation either on account of insurance, or on account of pensionary benefits or gratuity or grant of employment to a kin of the deceased. The main reason is that all these amounts are earned by the deceased on account of contractual relations entered into by him with others. It cannot be said that these amounts accrued to the dependents or the legal heirs of the deceased on account of his death in a motor vehicle accident. The claimants/dependents are entitled to 'just compensation' under the Motor Vehicles Act as a result of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. It cannot be said that these amounts accrued to the dependents or the legal heirs of the deceased on account of his death in a motor vehicle accident. The claimants/dependents are entitled to 'just compensation' under the Motor Vehicles Act as a result of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. Therefore, the natural corollary is that the advantage which accrues to the estate of the deceased or to his dependents as a result of some contract or act which the deceased performed in his life time cannot be said to be the outcome or result of the death of the deceased even though these amounts may go into the hands of the dependents only after his death. 8. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, their Lordships of the Apex Court in the said case were dealing with a case under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006. In the Sebastiani Lakra's case (supra), the Apex Court also considered the ratio of the decision rendered in the case of Shashi Sharma (supra), and held as under:- "10. In Shashi Sharma case (supra) this Court was dealing with the payments made to the legal heirs of the deceased in terms of Rule 5 (1) of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependants of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (for short 'the said Rules'). Under Rule 5 of the said Rules on the death of a Government employee, the family would continue to receive as financial assistance a sum equal to the pay and other allowances that was last drawn by the deceased employee for periods set out in the Rules and after the said period the family was entitled to receive family pension. The family was also entitled to retain the Government accommodation for a period of one year in addition to payment of L 25,000/- as ex gratia. In this case, the three-Judge Bench adverted to the principles laid down in Helen C. Rebello case (supra), followed in Patricia Jean Mahajan case (supra), and came to the conclusion that the decision in Vimal Kanwar case (supra) did not take a view contrary to Helen C. Rebello or Patricia Jean Mahajan case (supra). The following observations are relevant: "15. In this case, the three-Judge Bench adverted to the principles laid down in Helen C. Rebello case (supra), followed in Patricia Jean Mahajan case (supra), and came to the conclusion that the decision in Vimal Kanwar case (supra) did not take a view contrary to Helen C. Rebello or Patricia Jean Mahajan case (supra). The following observations are relevant: "15. The principle expounded in this decision in Helen C. Rebello case that the application of general principles under the common law to estimate damages cannot be invoked for computing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Further, the "pecuniary advantage" from whatever source must correlate to the injury or death caused on account of motor accident. The view so taken is the correct analysis and interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939, and must apply proprio vigore to the corresponding provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This principle has been restated in the subsequent decision of the two-Judge Bench in Patricia Jean Mahajan case, to reject the argument of the Insurance Company to deduct the amount receivable by the dependants of the deceased by way of "social security compensation" and "life insurance policy." However, while dealing with the scheme the Court held that applying a harmonious approach and to determine a just compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act it would be appropriate to exclude the amount received under the said Rules under the Head of 'Pay and Other Allowances' last drawn by the employee. We may note that on principle this Court has not disagreed with the proposition laid down in Helen C. Rebello or in Patricia Jean Mahajan case (supra), but while arriving at a just compensation, it had ordered the deduction of the salary, received under the statutory rules." 9. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the argument raised by the appellant that the amount receivable under the family pension is to be deducted from the amount of dependency payable to the claimants deserves to be rejected. 10. No other argument has been raised. 11. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present appeal and, hence, the same is dismissed.