Hon’ble Mushaffey Ahmad, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

This first appeal from order is directed against award dated 12.8.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Allahabad in Claim Petition No. 804 of 2011 awarding to the claimant wife and son a sum of Rs. 7,67,864/- apart from interest on the death.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has firstly urged that it was a head-on collision and, therefore, the Tribunal should have apportioned the negligence upon the deceased to the extent of 50%.This aspect has been considered by the Tribunal in detail. After going through the evidence on record, it found that the offending Qualis vehicle had come to its right and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased which was on the left side of the road. The Tribunal also relied upon the site plan prepared by the police. In the opinion of the Court, the Tribunal was fully justified in relying upon the evidence on record and entering the finding that the deceased was not guilty of any negligence.

It is then urged that the wife of the deceased is drawing more family pension than the deceased and, therefore, there was no loss of earning and the Tribunal has erroneously awarded compensation under this head.

3. It is apparent from the record that the deceased was an ex-armyman and had already retired and was aged 46 years 9 months when he met with the accident. The Apex Court has now settled the issue with regard to pecuniary advantage and has held that receipt of family pension would not be a pecuniary advantage under Motor Vehicles Act and cannot be deducted from compensation otherwise calculated. Thus, the Tribunal was within its jurisdiction to have awarded the compensation to the claimants.

Lastly, it is argued that the son was major and, therefore, he could not be said to be dependent on his father. No doubt the son is aged about 23 years, but the appellant did not lead any evidence to prove that the son was gainfully employed and was not dependent on the deceased.

No other point has been raised.

4. However, before parting with the case, the Court is constrained to record its anxiety to a dangerous trend which seems to have afflicted the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals across the State despite being cautioned by this and the Apex Court on several occasions.

As in this appeal as well as in the appeal No. 3310 of 2013 (The New India Assurance Com. Ltd. v. Smt. Angoori and others), the Court has been coming across usual tendency of the Tribunals to leave out a large chunk of the awarded amount directly payable mostly in the name of widows. In the award under appeal the tribunal granted Rs. 7,67,864-/and interest thereon. Out of this award, the widow was given Rs. 4,17,864/- and entire interest and only Rs. 2,00,00/- have been directed to be invested in a fixed deposit in the name of the widow. The remaining amount and interest totalling to about Rs. 3,24,000/- to be given through account payee cheque and Rs. 3,50,000/- given to the son which remain vulnerable. This is sufficient to satisfy champerty and incidental obligations. The tribunals entertain the logic that such amount might be necessary for meeting immediate need of the widow to support herself as well as her children and some take refuge to occasional directions of Hon’ble Apex Court in a particular case to release a portion of the award to the claimants but such an assumption is in flagrant violation of Hon’ble Supreme Courts directions given in case of Jai Prakash v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 2 SCC 607, High Courts circular letter No. 13/2010 Admin. ‘G-II Dated : Allahabad 17.5.2010, and Rule 220B of U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules1998.

Even the Hon’ble Apex Court is well aware that champerty is in the air and a large portion of the award ranging from 25% to 50% or even more is frittered away by using questionable methods. The Hon’ble Apex Court in their superintending solicitude for the helpless widows, children villa