JUDGMENT

The claimant is the appellant in this appeal and is aggreived by the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 28.02.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.313 of 2018. By the impugned Judgment and Decree, the Tribunal has arrived at the total compensation of Rs.23,92,560/-. However, while awarding compensation, the Tribunal has deducted a sum of Rs.12,64,000/- being the amount awarded which was given to the claimants under the Group Insurance policy taken by the deceased.

2.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the issue is no longer res-integra and is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs.Helen C. Rebello & Ors. Vs. Maharashtra State Transport Corporation & Anr (1999) 1 SCC 90 [AIR 1999 Sc 3191]. The learned counsel for the appellant also placed these reliance on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Gujarath High Court and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court held as under:

(i)National Insurance Co Ltd Vs. Rekhaben and Others 2017 (2) TN MAC 183 (SC).

(ii)United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.

Rehanaben Salimbhai Mukindo and Others 2019 ACJ 2498.

(iii)The New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs.

K.Pushpalatha and Others in C.M.A.No.2414 of

2017 dated 12.09.2019.

3.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent defending the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal by placed the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Noorjadi Khatoon and another Vs. Pintu Yadav and others 2016 ACJ 500. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that even as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs.Helen C. Rebello & Ors. Vs. Maharashtra State Transport Corporation & Anr (1999) 1 SCC 90 [AIR 1999 Sc 3191] referred to supra, it has been held as follows:

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 reason of the death. In other words, it is the balancing of loss and gain of the claimant occasioned by the death. But this has to change its colour to the extent a statute intends to do. Thus, this has to be interpreted in the light of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It is very clear, to which there could be no doubt that this Act delivers compensation to the claimant only on account of accidental injury or death, not on account of any other death. Thus, the pecuniary advantage accruing under this Act has to be deciphered, co- relating with the accidental death. The compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is on account of the pecuniary loss to the claimant by accidental injury or death and not other forms of death. If there is natural death or death by suicide, serious illness, including even death by accident., through train, air flight not involving motor vehicle would not be covered under the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, the application of general principle under the common law of loss and gain for the computation of compensation under this Act must co-relate to this type of injury or deaths, viz, accidental. If the words ''pecuniary advantage' from whatever source are to be interpreted to mean any form of death under this Act it would dilute all possible benefits conferred on the claimant and would be contrary of the spirit of the law. If the 'pecuniary advantage' resulting from death means pecuniary advantage coming under all forms of death then it will inlcude all the assets movable, immovable, shares, bank accounts, case and every amount receivable under any contract. In other words, all heritable assets inlcuding what is willed by the deceased etc. This would obliterate both, all possible conferment of economic security to the claimant by the deceased and the intentions of the leg