JUDGMENT : 1. Both the appeals arise out of common judgment and award, hence same are being decided together by this common judgment. SBCMA No.1297/2013: 2. Instant appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 13.12.2012 passed by the Court of learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa, District Dausa (Raj.) [for short ‘the tribunal’] in Compensation Petition No.417/2011, whereby the learned tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.23,60,516/-as compensation to the claimants respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the son of the deceased namely; Ashok Kumar got service on compassionate ground. Therefore, his income must have been deducted while computing the loss of future income. In support of such contentions, counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar & Ors. Vs. Kishore Dan & Ors., reported in 2013(2) WLC (SC) Civil 50. Counsel further submitted that the trolley was attached to the tractor and the same was not insured. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to make compensation as there was breach in condition of the insurance policy. 4. E-converso, counsel for the claimants respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant-insurance company and submitted that getting compassionate appointment cannot be a ground to deny the amount of compensation and loss of future income. In support of his contentions, counsel has also placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar (supra). Counsel further submitted that the trolley was attached to the tractor and the tractor was insured. Hence, no separate insurance of the trolley was required. Counsel further submitted that the tribunal has not committed any error while fastening liability upon the insurance company to make the payment of compensation. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The issue raised by the counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is ‘Whether getting compassionate appointment comes within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “Pecuniary Advantage” liable for deduction?’ This issue was decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar (supra) by holding as under:- “20. 6. The issue raised by the counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is ‘Whether getting compassionate appointment comes within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “Pecuniary Advantage” liable for deduction?’ This issue was decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar (supra) by holding as under:- “20. The second issue is “whether the salary receivable by the claimant on compassionate appointment comes within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “Pecuniary Advantage” liable for deduction.” “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 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. 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.” 7. Bare perusal of the aforesaid judgment clearly indicates that getting compassionate appointment cannot be treated to be an advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one’s death and the same has no corelation 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. Getting compassionate appointment cannot be termed as “Pecuniary Advantage” that comes under the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act and any such amount received on such appointment is not liable for deduction for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Getting compassionate appointment cannot be termed as “Pecuniary Advantage” that comes under the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act and any such amount received on such appointment is not liable for deduction for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Since this issue is no more res-integra as the same has already been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar (supra) and the same is also applicable in the instant case. Hence, there is no force in the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant-insurance company. 8. So far as the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant-insurance company that the attached trolley with the tractor was not insured, is also not having any force because the trolley is part of the tractor and the same cannot be used individually until and unless it is attached to the tractor. 9. Bare perusal of the Policy indicates that the tractor was insured. Hence, no illegality has been committed by the tribunal while fastening liability upon the insurance company to make the payment of compensation to the claimants respondents. 10. In view of the discussions made above, there is no force in the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company and the same is hereby dismissed. 11. Stay application and all pending application/s, if any, also stand/s dismissed. SBCMA No.1744/2013: 12. This appeal has been filed by the claimants appellants against the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal whereby the learned tribunal awarded Rs.23,60,516/-as compensation to the claimants appellants. 13. The claimants appellants are dissatisfied with the above amount awarded by the tribunal. 14. Counsel for the claimants appellants submitted that as per the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in 2017(2) RAR 147 (SC), a lump sum amount of Rs.70,000/-should be awarded under the conventional head i.e. loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/-), loss of estate (Rs.15,000/-) and funeral expenses (Rs.15,000/-) but in the instant case the tribunal has awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/-as compensation under the conventional heads, which needs suitable enhancement. No other argument has been raised by the counsel for the claimants appellants. 15. No other argument has been raised by the counsel for the claimants appellants. 15. E-converso, counsel for the respondent Insurance Company submitted that the tribunal has already passed the award on a higher side and no interference is required to be made by this Court in the same but she is not in a position to controvert the settled proposition of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 16. It is not in dispute that in the case of Parnay Sethi (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has fixed the above amount under the conventional heads and in the instant case the tribunal has awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/-only to the claimants appellants which should have been Rs.70,000/-. Hence, the claimants appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.20,000/- under the conventional heads. 17. In view of the discussions made above, the respondent Insurance Company is directed to pay additional amount of Rs.20,000/-under the conventional heads to the claimants appellants within a period of two months from the date of receipt a certified copy of this judgment. 18. With the aforesaid observations, the instant misc. appeal stands disposed of. 19. Pending application/s, if any, also stand/s, disposed of. 20. Registry is directed to place a copy of the judgment in the connected case file. 21. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send back record of the case to the court concerned forthwith.