Compassionate appointment is not a 'pecuniary advantage' liable for deduction in determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

1. - With the consent of the parties, the appeal is heard and decided finally.

2. This appeal is directed against judgment and award dated 12.06.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Doongarpur ('the Tribunal'), whereby, for death of one Krishna Chandra, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,02,140/- alongwith interest @ 6%. It has been further directed in the award that if the amount of compensation is not paid within a period of one month, the claimants would be entitled to interest @ 9%.

3. The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 25.03.2009 at about 12:30 PM one Krishna Chandra was travelling on a Scooty, when respondent No. 1 Rakesh Kumar, who was driving motor cycle, struck him from behind, which resulted in several injuries to said Krishna Chandra; he was referred for treatment to Gujarat and on way to Himmat Nagar he succumbed to injuries; application for compensation ('the application') was filed by the appellants - wife, son and married daughter of the deceased Krishna Chandra, inter alia, with the claim that deceased was aged 54 years and was employed as Upper Division Clerk with the Education Department and was getting Rs. 23,404/- as salary and, therefore, the claimants were entitled to a sum of Rs. 44,27,200/- as compensation.

4. Reply to the application was not filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. However, respondent No. 3 Insurance Company filed its reply and disputed the averments contained in the application.

5. The Tribunal framed four issues and came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1 Rakesh Kumar. The defence raised by the Insurance Company seeking exoneration from liability was negatived and, as indicated above, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 7,02,140/- as compensation.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal clearly fell in error in deducting the amount of pension and salary being received by appellant No. 1 having been granted compassionate appointment.

7. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar & O L v. Kishore Dan & Ors. : 2013 ACJ 1441 : (AIR 2013 SC (Civ) 1783) .

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not call for any 3 interference. It was also submitted that awarding penal interest on account of default in depositing the amount of compensation within a period of one month is wholly unjust. Reliance was placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Kanta Aggarwal & Ors. : 2008 ACJ 2372 : (AIR 2008 SC 3118) and National Insurance Company Limited v. Keshav Bahadur : (2004) 2 SCC 370 : (AIR 2004 SC 1581) .

9. I have considered the rival submissions.

10. The Tribunal while computing the amount of compensation awarded the following sums:-

11. While calculating the loss of income based on the salary certificate issued by the Department, where the deceased was serving, it was found that his basic salary was Rs. 17,730/- and was receiving D.A. of Rs. 3,900/-. However, the Tribunal deducted a sum of Rs. 8,000/-, which the appellant No. 1 was receiving as pension and Rs. 6,100/- as appellant No. 1 was appointed on compassionate basis as L.D.C. in the Department, where, the deceased was working.

12. The issues of deduction raised are no more res integra. In Vimal Kanwar (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with 4 the said issues held and observed as under:-

"19. The first issue is "whether provident fund, pension and insurance receivable by claimants come within the periphery of the Moto