IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.464 OF 2001 BETWEEN Kamma Jhansi Lakshmi and two others. …APPELLANTS AND Shaik Nagur Vali and two others. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the appellants: Mr. N. Subba Rao Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. V. Narayana Reddy Mr. Krishore Rai The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: This is an appeal by the claimants with respect to deduction of the amount covered by family pension from out of the compensation awarded by the tribunal below in M.V.O.P.No.505 of 1997 by order dated 25.08.2000. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in HELEN C. REBELLO v. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] and LAL DEI v. HIMACAL ROAD TRANSPORT[2]. He particularly relies upon Para 35 of the decision in HELEN C. REBELLO’s case (1 supra), which is clearly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. He further submits that said view of the Supreme Court is reiterated in the latest decision in LAL DEI’s case (2 supra). He further submits that though the tribunal arrived at the compensation of Rs.5,18,2000/- the amount covered by family pension, which works out to Rs.2,64,000/-, was deducted and only the balance amount is treated as loss of dependency. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the claimants cannot get double benefit and urged that the award does not deserve interference. 4. The aforesaid contention, however, is liable to be rejected inasmuch as the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) is being awarded with respect to tortuous liability arising out of the use of motor vehicle and the same having no relation with the benefits of life insurance policy or family pension, the legal heir would be entitled to same. In that view of the matter and following the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 5. There shall be decree for the entire amount of compensation of Rs.5,18,200/-. Though the tribunal below had granted interest at 12% per annum on Rs.2,54,500/- towards loss of dependency + Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium + Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate + Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses aggregating to Rs.2,79,000/-, now in the present appeal the amount of family pension of Rs.2,64,000/- is also held to be part of the decree, therefore, the said part of the decree herein shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till realization. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 5, 2009 DSK [1] (1999) 1 SCC 90 [2] (2007) 8 SCC 319