JUDGMENT : 1) This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “ MV Act”) has been filed challenging the award dated 24.12.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG) in Claim Case No.575/2015. By the impugned award, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.2,55,280/- as compensation to the appellants/claimants with 9% interest per annum on account of death of deceased Kedar Nath Yadav in an unfortunate accident which took place on 27.09.2015 by rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1/driver by offending vehicle i.e. Alto Car bearing Registration No. CG-10F-9958. 2) As per the pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, the deceased was a retired person and he was getting pension of Rs.14,035/- per month. The appellants/claimants being widow and major sons of the deceased had filed the claim application claiming total compensation of Rs.15,21,000/-. 3) The claim application was resisted by respondents/driver, owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle on various grounds. 4) The learned tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed issues and after appreciation of evidence and material available on record awarded the compensation as stated above. 5) Mr. Singroul, learned counsel for appellants submits that though the learned tribunal has considered that the pension of deceased was Rs.14,035/-,however, since appellant No.1/widow was getting Rs.9,135/- per month family pension, hence the calculation of the compensation was done by the learned tribunal at Rs.4,882/-which is absolutely unjustified in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vimal Kanwar and Ors. Vs. Kishore Dan and Ors. Reported in (2013) 7 SCC 476 . He also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in MAC No.429 of 2011 in case of Neel Kusum Ekka and ors. Vs. Motilal and ors. decided on 25.06.2013. He further submits that the compensation on other admissible head is also on the lower side, therefore, the compensation may be suitably enhanced. 6) Learned counsels for the respective respondents supported the award and submitted that appellant No.1/widow of the deceased is also getting the family pension, therefore, as such the amount of compensation awarded is justified. 7) Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6) Learned counsels for the respective respondents supported the award and submitted that appellant No.1/widow of the deceased is also getting the family pension, therefore, as such the amount of compensation awarded is justified. 7) Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8) There is no dispute to the fact that the deceased was a retired employee and was earning Rs.14,035/- as pension and it is also not in dispute that the appellant No.1/widow is also getting Rs.9,135/- as family pension. The learned tribunal fell in error in deducting the amount of family pension from earnings of the deceased which is absolutely contrary to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vimal Kanwar (Supra) and judgment of this Court in case of Neel Kusum Ekka (supra). 9) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Helen C. Rebello and Ors. Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Another reported in (1999) 1 SCC 90 had an occasion to consider the issues of pecuniary advantage like provident fund, pension, insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 35 held as under:- “35. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the event viz., accident which may not take place at all. Similarly., family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No co-relation between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy is received either by the insured or the heirs of the insured on account of the contract with the insurer, for which insured contributes in the form of premium. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No co-relation between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy is received either by the insured or the heirs of the insured on account of the contract with the insurer, for which insured contributes in the form of premium. It is receivable even by the insured, if he lives till maturity after paying all the premiums, in the case of death insurer indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contracts for the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant not on account of any accidental death but otherwise on insured's death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the contract, to receive the amount. Similarly any case, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. though are all a pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no co-relation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. How could such an amount come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as 'pecuniary advantage' liable for deduction. When we seek the principle of loss and gain, it has to be on similar and same plane having nexus inter so between them and not to which, there is no semblance of any co-relation. The insured (deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount has no co-relation to the compensation computed as against torfeasor for his negligence on account of accident. As aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation under the Act is on account of the injury of death without making any contribution towards it then how can fruits of an amount received through contributions of the insured be deducted out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act, he receives without any contribution. As we have said the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount received under the life insurance policy is contractual”. 10) Similarly, this Court in case of Smt. Rania Bai & others Vs. Mansaram & Ors., (2009) 1 C.G.L.J. 19 (DB) applying the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Helen C. Rebello (Supra) has held in Para 11 as under:- “11. 10) Similarly, this Court in case of Smt. Rania Bai & others Vs. Mansaram & Ors., (2009) 1 C.G.L.J. 19 (DB) applying the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Helen C. Rebello (Supra) has held in Para 11 as under:- “11. So far as arguments relating to payment of family pension is concerned, as held by the Apex Court in the matter of Mrs. Helen C. Rebello (Supra), which has been relied by the learned counsel for the appellants, the family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death, therefore, there is no co-relation between the two. Though this is a pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one’s death but this has no co-relation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. How could such an amount come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as ‘pecuniary advantage’ liable for deduction. When we seek principle of loss and gain, it has to be on similar and same plane having nexus inter se between them and not to which, there is no semblance of any co-relation. The deceased contributes his own money which has no co-relation to the compensation computed as against tortfeasor for his negligence on account of accident. The Apex Court said that the amount receivable as compensation under this Act is on account of the injury or death without making any contribution towards it, then how can fruits of an amount received through contributions be deducted out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act, is received without any contribution. The compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory”. 11) In light of the above prepositions of law and taking guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others; (2017) 16 SCC 680 , Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors; (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. 11) In light of the above prepositions of law and taking guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others; (2017) 16 SCC 680 , Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors; (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130 , this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:- S.N. Particular Awarded by this Court 1. Monthly Income of the deceased 14,035/- 2. Yearly income of the deceased 1,68,420/- 3. Personal expenditure (1/3rd) 56,140/- 4. After deducting personal expenses dependency comes to 1,12,280/- 5. Multiplier of 5 applied to assess total loss of dependency 5,61,400/- 6. Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 7. Loss of estate 15,000/- 8. Spousal Consortium 40,000/- 9. Parental consortium 80,000/- (40,000/-each) 10. Total compensation 7,11,400/- 12) For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs.2,55,280/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs.7,11,400/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.2,55,280/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.4,56,120/- the additional amount shall carry interest @6% per annum from the date of claim application. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. 13) The insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within 60 days. After deposit, Rs.3,00,000/- shall be invested as fixed deposit in a nationalized bank for a period of 2 years in the name of appellant No.1/claimant No.1; Rs.50,000/-each shall be paid to appellant No.2 & 3/claimant No.2 & 3 and remaining amount shall be paid to appellant No.1/claimant No.1 through bank transaction/account payee cheque.