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.

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 te