JUDGMENT : (Through Video Conferencing) 1. Review of judgement dated 20th March 2019, passed by this Court, partly allowing Appeal, being CMAM No. 116/2017, titled National Insurance Company Limited v. Nasima Begum and others, deducting the salary received or receivable by claimants for a period of seven years from total compensation awarded by the Tribunal and to this extent allowing the Appeal of respondent-Insurance Company, is sought for in instant petition on the grounds mentioned therein. 2. Heard and considered. 3. A claim petition, as is discernible from the file, was filed by claimants/ review petitioners before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar (for brevity "Tribunal"). After considering the case set up by the parties, the Tribunal vide Award dated 26th October 2016, granted compensation in the amount of Rs.25,52,048/- along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till final realization. Against Award dated 26th October 2016, respondent-Appellant Insurance Company preferred an Appeal, diarized and registered as CMAM No. 116/2017, which was partly allowed by this Court vide judgement dated 20th March 2019. 4. Learned counsel appearing for review petitioners-claimants, has stated that this Court while passing judgement under review, has relied upon various judgements, which are not at all applicable to the case of review petitioners for the reason that claimants have never received salary for a period of seven years from the department of deceased and that practice of paying salary to legal heirs of government servant, who dies in harness on or after 1st July 2009 has been given up and is not presently in vogue and therefore, judgement has been rendered per incuriam and this fact has not been appreciated or taken into consideration by this Court while delivering the judgement under review. It is also contended that the ground on which Award has been modified, has never been pleaded or raised before the Tribunal or Appellate Court and the issue on the basis of which the Appeal has been allowed, is beyond the pleadings, taking claimants/review petitioner by surprise. According to him, the court while adjudicating rights of parties cannot travel beyond the pleading and decide an issue which was never before the court because such decision would deprive the contesting party to project his case or defend his rights and lead evidence which has an ultimate bearing upon outcome of the case. According to him, the court while adjudicating rights of parties cannot travel beyond the pleading and decide an issue which was never before the court because such decision would deprive the contesting party to project his case or defend his rights and lead evidence which has an ultimate bearing upon outcome of the case. It is contended that review petitioners have received only family pension of deceased employee and the Issue of receiving seven years' salary enabling this Court to order deduction is not proper as review petitioners have never received salary of seven years of deceased employee. 5. It is pertinent to mention here that while considering abovementioned contentions, the scope and ambit of Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to be taken into consideration. 6. The grounds on which review can be sought are enumerated in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, which reads as under : "1. Application for review of judgment.- (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment of the court which passed the decree or made the order." 7. An application for review would lie, among others, when an order suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and permitting the same to continue would lead to failure of justice. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed. 8. The power of review can also be exercised by the court in the event discovery of new and important matter or evidence takes place which despite exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. An application for review would also lie if the order has been passed on account of some mistake. 9. Nevertheless, given contentions of learned counsel for review petitioners, more particularly with reference to deduction of seven years' salary, it would be apt to mention here that it is no more open to review petitioner-Insurance Company to make a contention that family pension received by family of deceased employee can be deducted from calculating the loss of income. Law in this regard is now settled. The Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance Company v. Shashi Sharma (2016) 9 SCC 627 , Sebastiani Lakra v. National Insurance Company Limited, AIR 2018 SC 5034 and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mannat Johal (2019) 15 SCC 260 , has said that family pension received by family of deceased employee cannot be deducted from calculating the loss of income and similarly other benefits, extended to dependents of deceased employee, viz. family pension, life insurance, provident fund etc., must remain unaffected and cannot be allowed to be deducted. 10. The law is well settled that the 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 kin of deceased. The main reason is that all these amounts are earned by deceased on account of contractual relations entered into by him with others. It cannot be said that these amounts have accrued to dependents or legal heirs of 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 death of deceased in a motor vehicle accident. It cannot be said that these amounts have accrued to dependents or legal heirs of 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 death of deceased in a motor vehicle accident. Thus, the natural corollary is that the advantage that accrues to the estate of deceased or to his dependents as a result of some contract or act which deceased performed in his life time cannot be said to be the outcome or result of death of deceased even though these amounts may go into the hands of dependents only after his death. 11. Insofar as the amounts of pension and gratuity are concerned, these are paid on account of the service rendered by deceased to his employer. It is now an established principle of Service Jurisprudence that pension and gratuity are the property of deceased. They are more in the nature of deferred wages. The deceased employee works throughout his life expecting that on his retirement he will get substantial amount as pension and gratuity. These amounts are also payable on death, whatever be the cause of death. Therefore, applying the same principles, the said amount cannot be deducted. Insofar as the present case is concerned, review petitioners have been able to show that they have not received seven years' salary and to this extent judgement dated 20th March 2019 is liable to be reviewed. 12. For the reasons discussed above, review petition is allowed and judgement dated 20th March 2019, passed by this Court, directing deduction of seven years' salary along with interest from the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, is reviewed and as a corollary thereof Appeal, bearing CMAM No. 116/2017 titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nasima Begum and others is dismissed and impugned Award is upheld. 13. Insurance Company shall pay the award amount along with interest as granted by the Tribunal, if not already paid, to the claimants. 14. Copy of this judgement be sent down.