Benefits received by the claimants, such as compassionate appointment and pension, would not be deducted or adjusted from the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.

1. This appeal is by the owner against the award dated 07.03.1998, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur.

2. The record of this file had been burnt in the fire incident which had taken place in the year 2011. Only the copy of the award could be reconstructed. None of the parties could give any material for reconstruction of the record. The counsels appearing for the parties agreed that the matter can be decided on the basis of whatever is available on the record.

3. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act seeking compensation for the death of Kaushal Kumar was filed. He was a Head Constable with Punjab Police and was getting salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. The claimants were the widow, the minor children and the mother. The Tribunal found that the deceased was getting salary of Rs.3,434/- per month and calculated the compensation of Rs.3,84,000/- and apportioned the amount to all the claimants.

4. The State of Punjab has filed this appeal on the ground that the widow was given compassionate appointment and she was also getting family pension of Rs.875/- per month, therefore, that amount should have been adjusted.

5. I have heard learned counsel of both the sides.

6. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon Lal Dei & Ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport 2007(8) SCC 319 and urged that since the widow had got compassionate appointment and she was also getting the pension, therefore, the benefits which were received by the claimants on account of death should have been deducted.

7. On the other hand the submission was that the Apex Court in Vimal Kanwar & Ors. Vs. Kishore Dan & Ors. 2013(2) RCR (Civil) 945 had considered this aspect and had held that the pecuniary advantage given to the wife of the deceased by way of compassionate appointment was not liable for deduction. It was urged that the Apex Court had also considered the case of Helen C. Rebello(Mrs.) V. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, 1998(4)RCR (Civil) 177.

8. The issues raised in Vimal Kanwar's case (supra) are noted in para no.15 of the judgment, which read as under:-

(i) Whether Provident Fund, Pension and Insurance receivable by the claimants come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “Pecuniary Advantage” liable for deduction.

(ii) Whether the salary receivable by claimant on compassionate appointment comes within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “Pecuniary Advantage” liable for deduction.

(iii) Whether the income tax is liable to be deducted for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and

(iv) Whether the compensation awarded to the appellants is just and proper.

9. It is necessary to notice the observations made in para nos.19 & 20, which read as under:-

19. The first issue is “whether Provident Fund, Pension and Insurance receivable by claimants come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “Pecuniary Advantage” liable for deduction.” The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before this Court in Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) and others vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (1999) 1 SCC 90. In the said case, this Court held that Provident Fund, Pension, Insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. are all a “pecuniary advantage” receivable by the heirs on account of one’s death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. Such an amount will not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “pecuniary advantage” liable for deduction. The following was the observation and finding of this Court:

“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