JUDGMENT 1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 27.02.2018 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Essential Commodities Act, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short ’the Tribunal’) in claim case No.32/2012 by which the claim petition filed by the claimants was allowed and the Insurance Company was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 26,60,183/- to the claimants. 2. Learned Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of both parties and documents available on record, deciding the claim petition in favour of the claimants and awarded compensation as indicated above. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants-Insurance Company submits that after the death of the deceased, the daughter of the deceased got compassionate appointment, hence, the claimants were not entitled to get any sort of compensation. Counsel further submits that under the conventional heads, an exorbitant amount of Rs.1,20,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants and in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , claimants are entitled to get only Rs.70,000/- under this head. Therefore, he prayed that interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition has correctly taken into consideration all the factors while calculating the award in the present case on the anvil of evidence produced before it. 5. He further submits that getting compassionate appointment after death of the deceased cannot be a ground to reject the claim petition and the claimants are entitled to get compensation. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar & Ors. Vs. Kishore Dan & Ors. In Civil Appeal No.5513 of 2012. Thus, the judgment passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference by this Court. 6. I have considered the submissions made at Bar and gone through the impugned judgment and award as well as other relevant documents available on record. 7. Vs. Kishore Dan & Ors. In Civil Appeal No.5513 of 2012. Thus, the judgment passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference by this Court. 6. I have considered the submissions made at Bar and gone through the impugned judgment and award as well as other relevant documents available on record. 7. Getting compassionate appointment cannot be a ground to deny compensation to the claimants of the deceased as the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar (supra) has dealt with the identical issue and held in Para No.20 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." 8. This Court is in full agreement with the ratio propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court on this question in the case of Vimal Kanwar (supra) because any amount received on compassionate appointment is not liable for deduction for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 9. This Court finds force in the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant that an excess amount of Rs.1,20,000/- has been awarded under the conventional heads in favour of the claimants. 9. This Court finds force in the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant that an excess amount of Rs.1,20,000/- has been awarded under the conventional heads in favour of the claimants. In the light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled to get Rs.70,000/-only. 10. Thus, an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.1,20,000/- - Rs.70,000/-) is reduced from the award passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to refund a sum of Rs.50,000/- with interest to the Insurance Company within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 11. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is partly allowed. 12. All pending applications, if any also stand disposed of. 13. Record of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith.