The instant appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment/award dated 26/04/2023 passed by 4th Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in claim case no.2414/2020 only on the quantum of compensation.

2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication are that on 30/07/2020 at about 7:00 p.m., deceased Jinendra Kumar was returning to his home in Jabalpur from his village Lamheta on his Activa scooter. When he reached Manegaon, a motorcycle bearing registration No. MP20MA9379 came from the opposite direction. The rider of the said motorcycle, while driving at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the Activa Signature Not Verified Signed by: NITESH PANDEY Signing time: 24-02-2026 17:46:36 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15576 2 MA-4679-2023 of the deceased. Due to the impact, he sustained injuries on his head, chest, hands and legs and was bleeding profusely. Deepak Patel and other persons present at the spot took him to Medical College, Jabalpur, in a 108 Ambulance, where he was admitted for treatment. However, he subsequently succumbed to his injuries.Information regarding the death was communicated by the hospital to the concerned police station. Consequently, Crime No. 239/2020 was registered at Police Station Belkheda, District Jabalpur, under Sections 279 , 337 , and 304-A of the IPC against Respondent No. 1.

3. The learned Tribunal, vide award dated 26/04/2023, allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 7,000/- per month.

4. Against the said award, the present appeal has been preferred on the ground that the deceased was an ex-employee of the Vehicle Factory and had retired in the year 2014. At the time of the incident, he was receiving a monthly pension of Rs. 26,430/-.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was a pensioner. He had served as a Examiner, Highly Skilled in the Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur and retired in the year 2014 upon attaining the age of superannuation. At the time of the incident, he was receiving a monthly pension of Rs. 26,430/-. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to a Signature Not Verified Signed by: NITESH PANDEY Signing time: 24-02-2026 17:46:36 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15576 3 MA-4679-2023 compensation of Rs. 70,00,000/- He submits that the Tribunal committed an illegality in not considering the deceased's monthly pension while assessing the amount of compensation. It is further argued that pension is a recurring and assured source of income arising from the past services of the deceased. Therefore, while determining the loss of dependency and calculating the compensation, such amount cannot be excluded or deducted, as it constitutes a legitimate and continuing component of the deceased's income. It is contended that the pension was the sole source of livelihood for the deceased and his family members. In support of said contention the appellant relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Kirosata Devi and others Vs. Ramji Lal and others ( SLP No.25497/2025), Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Shashi Sharma and others , reported in (2016) 9 SCC 627, Hanumantharaju B (Dead) By LR. Vs. M.Akram Pasha & another(Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos 2841-2842 of 2021.

6. Respondents No. 1 and 2, by filing a joint written statement, submitted that respondent No. 1 is the driver and respondent No. 2 is the owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. MP-20-ME-9379. It is contended that respondent No. 1 was holding a valid driving licence and the vehicle was duly insured. They have also admitted that the incident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the said offending vehicle.

7. Counsel for respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company filed a detailed written statement opposing the claim petition and prayed for its dismissal on the grounds that the offending vehicle was not duly insured and Signature Not Verified Signed by: NITESH PANDEY Signing time: 24-02-2026 17:46:36 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15576 4 MA-4679-2023 that respondent No. 1 did not possess a valid driving license to drive the said vehicle at the relevant time. It id further contended that the FIR was lodged belatedly without any satisfactory explanation for the delay and, therefore, in such circumstances, the appellants are not entitled to any compensation.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 has also contended that pension is the fruit of the services rendered by a person during his tenure of employment. The fundamental principle governing the award of compensation is to assess the actual loss caused to the family of the deceased. It is submitted that, after the death of the deceased, the appellants are receiving family pension in accordance with law; therefore, there is no loss of income. Hence, the pension cannot be treated as income for the purpose of determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act .

9. In support of his contention counsel for the respondent relied on law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Helen C. Rebello (MRS) and others Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another , reported in ( 1999)1 SCC 90 and Sebastiani Lakra and ors Vs. National Insurance company and another reported in AIR 2018 SC 5034.

10. In order to prove and establish their case, the appellants examined PW-1 Smt. Neelam Jain (appellant No. 1 herself), PW-2 Hitendra Gotia, and PW-3 Dipak Patel (an eyewitness), and also produced documentary evidence marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-41.

11. Respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as the Insurance Company did not choose to examine any witnesses in support of their defence.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15576 5 MA-4679-2023

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

13. The question now arises for consideration is whether the learned Tribunal committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in assessing and calculating the compensation without taking into account the monthly pension received by the deceased at the time of the incident.

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Helen C. Rebello (MRS) and others Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another (supra) has held that it is the general principal of estimating damages under the common law is concenred, 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.

The relevant paragraphs 32 and 33 are reproduced as under:-

33.Thus, it would not include that which claimant receives on account other form of deaths, which he would have received even apart from accidental death. Thus, such. pecuniary advantage would have no correlation to the accidental death for which compensation is computed. Any amount received or receivable not only on account of Signature Not Verified Signed by: NITESH PANDEY Signing time: 24-02-2026 17:46:36 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15576 7 MA-4679-2023 the accidental death but that would have come to the claimant even otherwise, could not be construed to be the "pecuniary advantage", liable for deduction. However, where the employer insures his employee, as against injury or death arising out of an accident, any amount received out of such insurance on the happening of such incidence may be an amount liable for deduction. However, our legislature has taken not of such contingency, through the proviso of Section 95 . Under it the liability of the insurer is excluded in respect of injury or death, arising out of, in the course of employment of an employee."

15. The law laid down by Supreme Court in Hanumantharaju B (Dead) by LR Vs. A.Akram Pasha and another (supra) was subsequently followed by three benches judges of Hon'ble Apex Court in Reliance General Insurance Company limited Vs. Shashi Sharma and others (supra) and the High Court of Madras in the case of S.Vijaya and another Vs. K.Karthikeyan and another , reported in 2013 ACJ 2087.

Para 19 of Hanumantharaju B (Dead) by LR(supra) is relevant. The same is reproduced as under:-

The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No co-relation between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy is received either by the insured or the heirs of the insured on account of the contract with the insurer, for which the insured contributes in the form of premium. It is receivable even by the insured if he lives till maturity after paying all the premiums. In the case of death, the insurer indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contract for the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant not on account of any accidental death but otherwise on the insured's death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the contract, to receive the amount.

Similarly, any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. though are all a pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no corelation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. How could such an amount come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as 'pecuniary advantage' liable for deduction. When we seek the principle of loss and gain, it has to be on a similar and same plane having nexus, inter se, between them and not to which there is no semblance of any co-relation. The insured (the deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount which has no co-relation to the compensation computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident.

As aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation under the Act is on account of the injury or death without making any contribution towards it, then how can the fruits of an amount received through contributions of the insured be deducted out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act . The amount under this Act he receives Signature Not Verified Signed by: NITESH PANDEY Signing time: 24-02-2026 17:46:36 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15576 9 MA-4679-2023 without any contribution. As we have said, the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount receivable under the life insurance policy is contractual.

16. The law laid down in Hanumantharaju B (Dead) by LR Vs. A.Akram Pasha and another(supra) is subsequently followed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Kirosata Devi & others Vs. Ramji Lal and others (supra). Paragraph 10 of the said judgment is relevant which is reproduced as under:-

Hence, while determining the loss of dependency, the pension amount cannot be excluded or deducted, as it forms a legitimate and continuing component of the income which the dependents would have otherwise received, and hence the pension amount as receivable at the time of the accident, by the deceased has to be considered while calculating the loss of income and hence in the present case as the deceased was receiving a pension of Rs.5,839/-per month, and accordingly the same has to be added to the salary as received by the deceased from his private job. As far as the income from the private service is concerned, the Courts below have made certain unwarranted deductions in calculating the income. We therefore fix the income of the deceased from his private service at Rs.32,673/-per month, and as a result, the total monthly income of the deceased is refixed at Rs.38,512/- for the computation of compensation. The claimant-appellant(s) are also entitled to compensation under other heads in accordance with the settled principles of law"

17. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hanumantharaju B (Dead) by LR Vs. A.Akram Pasha and another(supra) , I have no hesitation in holding that the learned MACT committed an illegality in assessing and calculating the compensation without taking into consideration the pension of the deceased as income and in instead assuming his notional income at Rs. 7,000/- per month.

18. Thus, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is modified to the aforesaid extent. The monthly pension received by the deceased at the time of his death was Rs. 26,430/-, which shall be treated as his monthly income. Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 3,17,160/-.

19. At the time of the incident, the deceased was receiving a monthly pension of Rs. 26,430/-. It is to be assumed that one-third of the said amount was spent by the deceased towards his personal expenses; accordingly, a deduction of one-fourth is required to be made.

20. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 26,430/- and the annual income comes to Rs. 3,17,160/-, which shall be treated as his income for the purpose of computation.

21. The comparitive chart in respect of compensation awarded by MACT and compensation assessed by this Court is as under:-

22. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to pay the aforesaid enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.7,77,200/- within a period of two months from the date of this order. The Insurance Company shall also be liable to pay interest on the aforesaid enhanced amount at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the application till its realization.

23. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants stands allowed and disposed of.

(AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI) JUDGE S /-