JUDGMENT : R. SUBRAMANIAN, J. Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award and decreetal order dated 22.11.2019 made in MCOP No. 139 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-ordinate Judge Court, Rasipuram. 1. The appeal is by the Insurance Company. Challenge is to the quantum of compensation awarded at Rs. 18,22,040/- for the death of one Ponnusamy in a motor accident that took place on 22.12.2013 at about 3.30 p.m. on the Salem - Namakkal road near Thalampallam bus stop. 2. It is the case of the claimants that while the deceased was riding in his motor cycle to cross the road, the car bearing Registration No. KA-51-Z-8370 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased and caused the accident. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. The claimants sought for a compensation at Rs. 20,00,000/-. The quantum was sought to be justified by claiming that the deceased was a retired Bank staff and working as a Manager in Muthoot Finance, Tharamangalam Branch and earning a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month. 3. The Insurance Company resisted the claim contending that the accident did not happen in the manner suggested by the claimants and there was no negligence on the part of the rider of the car. According to the Insurance Company, it is the deceased who suddenly crossed the road and invited the accident. On the quantum of compensation claimed, it was contended by the Insurance Company that since the wife of the deceased is being paid family pension, there is no monetary loss and therefore, the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive. 4. Before the Tribunal, Ravikumar, the 3rd claimant was examined as PW-1 and two other witnesses were examined. The respondents did not let in any evidence. The First Information Report was marked as Ex.P1 and copy of the pension order was marked as Ex.P15. The deceased was admittedly aged about 62 years at the time of the accident and was a retired Bank employee drawing pension. 5. The Tribunal, on a consideration of the evidence before it, concluded that the pension could be taken as the loss of income for the family. The deceased was admittedly aged about 62 years at the time of the accident and was a retired Bank employee drawing pension. 5. The Tribunal, on a consideration of the evidence before it, concluded that the pension could be taken as the loss of income for the family. It deducted 1/4 for the personal expenses of the deceased and fixed the monthly loss of dependency at Rs. 20,560/-. Applying multiplier of 7, the Tribunal arrived at the total loss of income at Rs. 17,27,040/-. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 15,000/- each for funeral expenses and loss of estate and a sum of Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- respectively for loss of consortium and loss of spouse. Aggrieved by the award, the Insurance Company is on appeal. 6. We have heard Mr. N. Somasundar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ma. P. Thangavel, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 5. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though the claimants had alleged that the deceased was working in Muthoot Finance on the salary of Rs. 25,000/- the same has not been proved by any evidence worth consideration. On the decision of the Tribunal to took pension as the basis for loss of dependency, the learned counsel would invite our attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Birender and Others, 2020 (1) TN MAC 182 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered the question as to whether the family pension that is drawn by an employee at the time of her death could be added to her salary and taken as a loss of dependency. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 21 of the said judgment concluded that the addition of that Rs. 7,000/- family pension to the income of the deceased made by the High Court is not justified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court approved the reasoning of the Tribunal for not including the family pension drawn by the wife of the deceased as the determining factor for calculating loss of dependency. Para 21 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as follows: “21. Be that as it may, the Tribunal, for excluding the amount received by the deceased as Family Pension due to demise of her husband, had noted in Paragraph 26, as under: “26. Para 21 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as follows: “21. Be that as it may, the Tribunal, for excluding the amount received by the deceased as Family Pension due to demise of her husband, had noted in Paragraph 26, as under: “26. Learned Counsel for the Claimants further requested that about to Family Pension being drawn by the deceased also be calculated for the purpose of assessing the Compensation. This contention and assertion of learned Counsel for the Claimants does not carry any conviction with the Tribunal because the deceased was getting Family Pension in her own right as the widow of the deceased and cannot be termed as her income for the purpose of computing the amount of Compensation.” The High Court, without reversing the said finding, proceeded to include the amount of Rs. 7,000/- per month received by the deceased as Pension amount after demise of her husband. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal and for the same reason, have to reverse the conclusion recorded by the High Court to include the said amount as Loss of Dependency. That could not have been taken into account, as the same was payable only to the deceased being widow and not her income as such for the purpose of computing the amount of Compensation.” 8. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is wholly misconceived. As we have already stated the facts in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Birender and Others were that the deceased was employed as a Sanitary worker in the Municipality earning a sum of Rs. 21,000/- per month. Apart from that, she was getting a family pension of Rs. 7,000/- which was payable to her on the death of her husband. Though the total income was Rs. 28,000/- as far as the pension is concerned, it was payable to her as a persona designata as the widow of a deceased/ employee. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted the conclusions while faulting the High Court for adding that Rs. 7,000/- to the income of the deceased approved the dictum of the Tribunal, refusing to at Rs. 7,000/-. 9. The facts in the case on hand are completely different. Here a pensioner had died. He was getting a pension of Rs. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted the conclusions while faulting the High Court for adding that Rs. 7,000/- to the income of the deceased approved the dictum of the Tribunal, refusing to at Rs. 7,000/-. 9. The facts in the case on hand are completely different. Here a pensioner had died. He was getting a pension of Rs. 27,413/- that was paid to him as a pensioner therefore, on his death, the family losses that amount, which amounts to loss of dependency. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also pointed out that the family pension drawn by the wife cannot be deducted while computing the loss of dependency for the death of the husband. This also justifies our conclusions that the pension drawn by the deceased can form the basis for determination of compensation for loss of dependency. 10. We are unable to see the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as a precedent for the preposition sought to be projected by the learned counsel for the appellant to effect that loss of pension cannot be loss of dependency. Hence, we see no merit in the appeal. This appeal fails and it is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.