JUDGMENT : This Motor Accident Claims Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award, dated 14.03.2013 in M.V.OP.No.295 of 2011, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa (“Tribunal” for short). The present appeal is filed by the appellant who was arrayed as second respondent/Insurance Company in the aforesaid M.V.O.P. 2. The parties to this MACMA will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein were the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.295 of 2011, who filed the claim under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation being the legal heirs of one B. Venkata Prasad Babu (hereinafter will be referred to as “deceased”) in the motor vehicles accident that took place on 07.09.2009 in which the Lorry bearing Registration No.A.P-12-V-0224 (“offending lorry” for short) had involved. 4. The case of the claimants, in brief, as set out in the claim filed before the Tribunal is as follows: (i) On 07.09.2009 the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider from Malakpet to M.G. Bus Station (CBS), Hyderabad on his uncle’s Motorcycle bearing Registration No.A.P-11-N-3030, driven by his uncle in a normal speed. The Motorcycle was moving on the extreme left side of the road, observing traffic rules and regulations. At about 7-00 a.m., they reached Saleem Cross Roads on Malakpet to M.G. Bus Station. In the meantime, the offending Lorry came from back side of the deceased, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing horn and dashed against the Motorcycle. In view of the said accident, the deceased and his uncle received serious injuries and the deceased died on the spot. The accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Lorry. (ii) The deceased was aged about 35 years, hale and healthy and well built body at the time of accident and he was working as A.R. Police Constable in D.A.R. Station, Kurnool. He was earning Rs.12,240/- per month towards his salary. He was contributing the entire amount to the claimants who are only legal heirs and dependants of the deceased. The deceased is having 23 years of service and had prospect of becoming the Inspector rank. He was also entitled to higher salary. He was earning Rs.12,240/- per month towards his salary. He was contributing the entire amount to the claimants who are only legal heirs and dependants of the deceased. The deceased is having 23 years of service and had prospect of becoming the Inspector rank. He was also entitled to higher salary. Because of untimely death, the claimants were denied the pleasure and company of the deceased and they were deprived of their maintenance. The deceased would have lived up to 90 years of his age and would have contributed more amounts, if he had not met with accident. The father of the deceased died after the death of the deceased. (iii) The first respondent is the owner of the offending Lorry, which is insured with the second respondent. Hence, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. Hence, the claim for awarding a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- towards compensation. 5. The first respondent-owner of the offending Lorry remained exparte before the Tribunal. 6. The second respondent/Insurance Company got filed a counter contending in substance that the claimants are put to strict proof of the manner of the accident and the cause of death. They have to prove that the offending Lorry in question is covered with the insurance policy and that the driver had the driving license. The accident was occurred due involvement of two vehicles i.e., Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing Registration No.A.P.-11-N-3030 on which the deceased was travelling and the offending Lorry. Hence, it is just and necessary to add the owner and insurance company of the Hero Honda Motorcycle as parties. Otherwise, the O.P. is bad for non-joinder of proper parties. The claimants have to prove the income of the deceased by filing necessary and acceptable documents. The offending Lorry is insured with the second respondent under valid policy No.612800/31/08/02/00007918. It was in force from 17.11.2008 to 16.11.2009 subject to the terms and conditions. The compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive and exorbitant. The first respondent is not cooperating with the second respondent to contest the case, as such, the second respondent can be permitted to take available defences. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. It was in force from 17.11.2008 to 16.11.2009 subject to the terms and conditions. The compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive and exorbitant. The first respondent is not cooperating with the second respondent to contest the case, as such, the second respondent can be permitted to take available defences. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing No.A.P-12-V-0224, resulting into the death of deceased by name B. Venkata Prasad Babu on 07.09.2009? (2) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation and, if so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? 8. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 to P.3 were examined and Ex.A.1 to A.5 and Ex.X.1 and Ex.X.2 were marked. The second respondent did not examine any witnesses. 9. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, answered the issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the claimants and against the contesting respondent and accordingly awarded a sum of Rs.21,96,000/- as compensation to the claimants payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and directing the respondents to deposit the amount within one month and after deposit, the second claimant can withdraw Rs.10,00,000/- with interest thereon and the first claimant is entitled for the balance amount with interest thereon and that the first claimant is permitted to withdraw Rs.6,00,000/- and the second claimant is permitted to withdraw Rs.5,00,000/- and the balance amount of the claimants shall be kept in fixed deposit for a period of two years and thereafter they can withdraw the same. Felt aggrieved of the aforesaid award of the Tribunal, the unsuccessful second respondent i.e., New India Assurance Company Limited in the capacity of appellant filed the present MACMA. 10. Now in deciding this MACMA, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: (1) Whether the award, dated 14.03.2013 in M.V.O.P.No.295 of 2011, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? (2) To what relief? 10. Now in deciding this MACMA, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: (1) Whether the award, dated 14.03.2013 in M.V.O.P.No.295 of 2011, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? (2) To what relief? Point Nos.1 and 2: 11. P.W.1 is no other than the first claimant i.e., the wife of the deceased and she filed her chief examination affidavit putting forth the facts in tune with the pleadings. Through her examination, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 are marked. Ex.A.1 is attested copy of FIR in Crime No.309 of 2009 of Malakpet Police Station, Hyderabad. Ex.A.2 is attested copy of Inquest Report. Ex.A.3 is attested copy of postmortem certificate. Ex.A.4 is attested copy of charge sheet. Ex.A.5 is pay slip issued by Kurnool District Police. Further the claimants examined P.W.2, who is a direct witness to the occurrence. 12. The chief examination of P.W.2 is that he knows the deceased B. Venkata Prasad Babu. He knows the claimants, who are legal heirs of the deceased. He witnessed the accident. On 07.09.2009 the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider from Malakpet to M.G. Bus Station (CBS) on motorcycle bearing Registration No.A.P-11-N-3030, driven by his uncle T. Satyanarayana in a normal speed, on extreme left side of the road, observing the traffic rules and regulations. At about 7-00 a.m., they reached Saleem Nagar Cross roads on Malakpet to M.G. Bus Station. In the meantime, one Lorry bearing Registration No.A.P-12-V00224 with a load of wood came from back side of the deceased driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed without blowing horn and dashed against the said Motorcycle. As a result of which, both the deceased and the said T. Satyanrayana fell down and the said Lorry ran over the deceased and the deceased died on the spot. The rider of the motorcycle also received injuries. He was examined by the police. 13. P.W.3 was the Head Constable in A.R. Headquarters. The claimants examined him to prove the salary of the deceased. According to the evidence, their office received summons for production of Service Register extract of late B.V. Prasad Babu, P.C.1697. He is authorized by the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool to attend the Court and to give evidence. 13. P.W.3 was the Head Constable in A.R. Headquarters. The claimants examined him to prove the salary of the deceased. According to the evidence, their office received summons for production of Service Register extract of late B.V. Prasad Babu, P.C.1697. He is authorized by the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool to attend the Court and to give evidence. The authorization letter given to him is Ex.X.1. The attested copy of Service Register extract is Ex.X.2. As per the Service Register of B.V. Prasad Babu, his date of birth is 01.09.1970. As per the endorsement of the proceedings, dated 22.09.2009, B.V. Prasad Babu, ARPC.1697 died on 07.09.2009 due to motor vehicles accident. The entry is made on 17.04.2010. As per the entry, dated 04.02.2009, the basic pay of the deceased B.V. Prasad Babu was Rs.7,570/- as on 01.12.2008. Ex.A.5 was issued by their office. 14. Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would contend that the contention of the appellant as per the grounds of appeal is that according to the evidence of P.W.1 in cross examination, she is receiving Family Pension of Rs.7,000/- per month and the Tribunal did not deduct such an amount while computing the compensation and it is against the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhakra Beas Management Board vs. Kanta Aggarwal (smt.) and others, 2008 ACJ 2372 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that benefits which the claimants received on account of the death have to be duly considered while fixing the compensation. As the Tribunal did not deduct the said amount which is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court and if that amount is deducted, the compensation that is payable to the claimants by the respondent/appellant would comes to Rs.13,19,940/- only, as such, granting of a sum of Rs.21,96,000/- is excessive. In support of the contention, the learned counsel would rely upon the above said decision which is reported in 2008(11) SCC 366 . She would further rely upon the decisions in Vimal Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others, (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 476 and National Insurance Company Limited vs. Rekhaben and others, 2017) 13 Supreme Court Cases 547 to contend that the amounts that are being received by the first claimant are liable to be deducted while awarding the compensation. 15. 15. Sri D. Kodandarami Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants, would contend that it is not a case where the first claimant was given any compassionate appointment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rekhaben’s case (supra) distinguished in Kanta Aggarwal’s case (supra) and further the decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are of no use to the appellant. The decision in Vimal Kanwar’s case (supra) and Rekhaben’s case (supra) will go against the contention of the appellant and further Rekhaben’s case (supra) would give clarity to nullify the contention of the appellant by relying upon Kanta Aggarwal’s case (supra). He would further submit that in fact the last pay drawn of the deceased was not considered by the Tribunal and when the date of accident was on 07.09.2009 salary of the deceased in September, 2008 alone was considered and this Court has every power to enhance the compensation. The compensation that is awarded to the claimants is liable to be revised by enhancing the compensation. Though there is no cross objections, this Court has got power to do so and in support of his contentions, he would rely upon the judgment of this Court (DB) in MACMA No.945 of 2013. 16. According to the cross examination of P.W.1, she was not a witness to the occurrence. P.W.2 was the direct witness to the occurrence. The Tribunal on considering the evidence of P.W.2, the direct witness, coupled with Ex.A.1-attested copy of FIR, Ex.A.2-atested copy of Inquest Report, Ex.A.3-attested copy of Postmortem Certificate and Ex.A.4-attested copy of the charge sheet, came to a conclusion that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Lorry i.e., first respondent vehicle. The finding the fact recorded by the Tribunal is not under challenge in the grounds of appeal. As pointed out, the whole contention of the appellant revolves around the fact that as the first claimant is receiving pension of Rs.7,000/-, that amount is to be deducted while computing the compensation and in support of such a contention, the appellant would rely upon three decisions. It is the quantum of compensation that was awarded in favour of the claimants which is in dispute. Therefore, the scope of the appeal is limited one. 17. Firstly, I would like to deal with the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is the quantum of compensation that was awarded in favour of the claimants which is in dispute. Therefore, the scope of the appeal is limited one. 17. Firstly, I would like to deal with the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. The decision in Kanta Aggarwal’s case (supra) was a case where when the deceased met with death in a motor vehicles accident. The owner of the vehicle who was an employer provided compassionate appointment to the wife and when a claim was laid before the Tribunal, the Tribunal awarded compensation. When the matter was canvassed before the High Court, the High Court dismissed the appeal. When the matter was canvassed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made a finding that where the employer insures his employee, as against injury or death arisen out of an accident, any amount received out of such insurance on the happening of such incident may be an amount liable for deduction. It is basing on this citation, the appellant would seeks to deduct the so-called pension being received from the compensation. 18. It is to be noted that even in the decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in Rekhaben’s case (supra), the question that arise before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is whether any pecuniary advantages received from other source by reason of victim’s death i.e., salary receivable by the dependant claimant upon compassionate appoitnment due to victim’s death is liable to be deducted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rekhaben’s case (supra) when Kanta Aggarwal’s case (supra) was brought to the notice held that the above said decision is distinguishable because the tortfeasor offered employment on compassionate grounds to the wife of the deceased, as such, the case in Kanta Aggarwal’s case (supra) is distinguishable to the case on hand. 19. Coming to the present case on hand, it is not a case where the first claimant was provided with any compassionate appointment. It is never the case of the second respondent that the first claimant is receiving any amount under the head of compassionate appointment. It is not a case where the first respondent provided any compassionate appointment. Therefore, Kanta Aggarwal’s case (supra) is misquoted to the present situation. It is never the case of the second respondent that the first claimant is receiving any amount under the head of compassionate appointment. It is not a case where the first respondent provided any compassionate appointment. Therefore, Kanta Aggarwal’s case (supra) is misquoted to the present situation. The proposition in Rekhaben’s case (supra) is very clear that when the tortfeasor has not provided any amount to the victim’s family financial benefit of compassionate appointment is not liable to be deducted. Hence, by relying upon Kanta Aggarwal’s case (supra) or Rekhaben’s case (supra), the appellant cannot support its contentions in anyway. 20. Turning to another decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in Vimal Kanwar’s case (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held that amounts such as Provident Fund, Pension and Life Insurance received by the claimants on account of the victim’s death do not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as ‘pecuniary advantage’ liable for deduction. 21. It is no doubt true that the first claimant is receiving pension. The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vimal Kanwar’s case (supra) are as follows: 18. The first issue is “whether provident fund, pension and insurance receivable by the claimants come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as ‘pecuniary advantage’ liable for deduction”. 19. The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before this Court in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC, (1999) 1 SCC 90 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 197. In the said case, this Court held that provident fund, pension, insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc., are all a “pecuniary advantage” receivable by the heirs on account of one’s death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statue occasioned only on account of accidental death. Such an amount will not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “pecuniary advantage” liable for deduction”. Hence, the contention canvassed vehemently in the grounds of appeal deserves no merits at all. 22. Now coming to the income of the deceased as evident from the evidence let in, the last pay drawn was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal. When the deceased died in September, 2009, pay slip of September, 2008 could only be filed. Hence, the contention canvassed vehemently in the grounds of appeal deserves no merits at all. 22. Now coming to the income of the deceased as evident from the evidence let in, the last pay drawn was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal. When the deceased died in September, 2009, pay slip of September, 2008 could only be filed. There is no dispute about the fact that the gross salary of the deceased as on September, 2008 is Rs.12,331/- per month. After deducting non-governmental deductions and profession tax, the net salary was Rs.12,000/- per month. There is no dispute that the deceased was a permanent government employee who was drawing salary with certain scale which was with annual increments. As the deceased was below the age of 40 years, the Tribunal taken into consideration 50% of the net salary towards future prospectus, as such, added Rs.6,000/- to Rs.12,000/-. Out of Rs.18,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased because there are only two dependants, Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the total amount. Hence, the net contribution to the family would be Rs.12,000/- per month, as such, it comes to Rs.1,44,00/- per year. The proper multiplier for the age group of the deceased is 15, as such, the Tribunal calculated the net contribution of Rs.1,44,000/- x 15 and arrived at the figure Rs.21,60,000/-. Further the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.3,000/- towards transportation, Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium. So, the Tribunal totally awarded a sum of Rs.21,96,000/-. The net drawings of the deceased as above are not in dispute. As the contention of the appellant that pension that is being drawn by the first claimant is liable to be deducted is rejected, now there remains no tenable contention on the part of the appellant to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. 23. As pointed out, a contention is canvassed on behalf of the claimants that only the pay slip of September, 2008 could be filed before the Tribunal and pay slip of September, 2009 i.e., the period of death of the deceased could not be filed and that this Court has power to enhance the compensation. 23. As pointed out, a contention is canvassed on behalf of the claimants that only the pay slip of September, 2008 could be filed before the Tribunal and pay slip of September, 2009 i.e., the period of death of the deceased could not be filed and that this Court has power to enhance the compensation. It is no doubt true that by virtue of various judgments and settled legal position, which is also dealt with in M.A.C.M.A.No.945 of 2013, the Court has power to enhance the compensation though there is no prayer, but there should be some basis for the claimants to make such a contention. When the claimants could only rely upon Ex.A.5, now they cannot canvass the contention that they are entitled more compensation. Without any basis, the contention of the claimants to enhance the compensation deserves no merits. 24. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, absolutely, there are no merits in the grounds of appeal, as such, MACMA is liable to be dismissed. The compensation that was awarded in favour of the claimants by the Tribunal is just and reasonable which is not liable to be interfered with. 25. In the result, the MACMA is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.