G. P. Mittal, J.

1. These are two Cross Appeals. MAC APP. 812/2010 has been preferred by the Claimants who are the legal representatives of the deceased Balbir Singh for enhancement of compensation of Rs. 16,42,000/- awarded for his death in an accident which took place on 03.11.2008. In Cross Appeal MAC APP. 30/2011 Appellant Reliance General Insurance Company Limited disputes the Insurance Company's liability to pay the compensation as Respondent No.5 (Sube Singh, the driver) did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle on the date of the accident and there was no permit to drive the tempo number HR-5C-8498. The Insurance Company avers that the quantum of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the loss of love and affection was exorbitant and excessive and prays for deduction of the compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience Meena and Others in MAC APP. 812/2010 shall be referred to as the Claimants and the Appellant Reliance General Insurance Company Limited in MAC APP. 30/2011, who is the insurer of the offending vehicle HR-55C-8498 shall be referred to as the Insurer and Respondents No.5 and 6, who are the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle shall be referred to as the driver and owner respectively.

3. While computing the loss of dependency, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (the Claims Tribunal) took the deceased's salary after deducting conveyance and washing allowance as Rs. 12,964/-, added 30% towards future prospects as the deceased was in permanent employment with MES, Subrato Park, deducted 4500/- towards the family pension, deducted one-fourth towards the personal and living expenses (as per the number of dependents) and applied the multiplier of 14' to compute the loss of dependency as Rs. 15,12,000/-. The Claims Tribunal added a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the loss of love and affection to the four dependents and Rs. 10,000/- each towards the loss of consortium, loss to estate and funeral expenses to award overall compensation of Rs. 16,42,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum.

4. First of all, I shall take up MAC APP.812/2010. The contention raised on behalf of the Claimants is that a family pension of Rs. 4500/- was illegally deducted by the Tribunal to compute the loss of dependency.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurer justifies the deduction of Rs. 4500/- on the ground that this was a gain to the Claimants on account of death and while computing the loss of dependency there has to be balancing on one hand, the loss to the claimant of the future pecuniary benefits that would have accrued to them but for the death, with the "pecuniary advantage" which from whatever source comes to them by reason of the death. In my view, the Appeal preferred by the Claimants must succeed on the ground raised.

6. It is important to note that it is only the benefits which are received or receivable on account of accidental death which can be deducted from the pecuniary loss suffered by the Claimants.

7. In Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC, 1999 (1) SCC 90, it was held that the amount of Provident Fund, sum payable on life insurance policy, etc. were not deductable from the amount of compensation because these sums are payable to the legal representatives of the deceased even when the death is not accidental. The distinction was made on gains on account of natural death and accidental death. It was held that whatever comes to the legal representatives by virtue of the accidental death only would be liable to the deducted. I extract Para 34 and 35 of the report hereunder,:

"34. So far as the general principle of estimating damages under the common law is concerned, it is settled that the pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing on one hand, the loss to the claimant of the future pecuniary benefits that would have accrued to him but for the death with the "pecuniary advantage" which from whatever source comes to him by reaso