ORDER : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Since both these appeals are arising out of common impugned order, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed by this common judgment. 2. The claimants as well as the insurance company both have preferred these two appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short “Act of 1988”) against the impugned award passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, Chhattisgar (for brevity “AMACT”). Claimants in their appeal i.e. MAC No.1487/2022 are seeking enhancement of award and whereas the insurance company in its appeal i.e. MAC No.1173/2022 is seeking reduction in the amount of award granted by the AMACT. 3. Mr. Akash Shrivastava, learned counsel for the claimants, would submit that the amount of house rent allowance, provident fund, vehicle fuel allowance and medical allowance could not have been deducted from the monthly income of the deceased in light of decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Vimal Kanwar and others v. Kishore Dan and others , [ (2013) 7 SCC 476 ] and, therefore, the appeal of the claimants be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced and further the appeal of the insurance company is liable to be dismissed. 4. Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for the insurance company, would submit that the compensation awarded to the claimants by the impugned award dated 20.07.2022 is on higher side, therefore, appeal filed on behalf of the claimants deserves to be dismissed while making deduction in the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records meticulously. 6. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Vimal Kanwar (supra) have held that the amount of 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 and the same could not have been deducted from the monthly income of the deceased and observed in paragraphs No. 18 & 19 as under:- “18. 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.” 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.” 19. The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before this Court in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC. 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 death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the event, viz., accident, which may not take place at all. Similarly, family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No correlation 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. 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 correlation 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 correlation. The insured (deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount which has no correlation 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 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.”” 7. Similarly, in the matter Meenakshi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., , [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1872] their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that allowances under the heads of transport allowance, house rent allowance, provident fund loan, provident fund and special allowance ought to be added whiel considering the basis salary of the victim/deceased to arrive at the dependency factor. Their Lordships have observed as under:- “9. Recently, in a judgment dated 11 th July, 2024 in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nalini [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal © No.4230/2019], this Court held that, allowances under the heads of transport allowance, house rent allowance, provident fund loan, provident fund and special allowance ought to be added while considering the basic salary of the victim/deceased to arrive at the dependency factor. 10. 10. Therefore, components of house rent allowance, flexible benefit plan and company contribution to provident fund have to be included in the salary of the deceased while applying the component of rise in income by future prospects to determine the dependency factor. The Accident Claims Tribunal was justified in factoring these components into the salary of the deceased, before applying 50% rise by future prospects due to future prospects, while calculating the total compensation payable to the appellant.” 8. Coming to the facts of the present case in light of principles of law laid down in the aforesaid decision, the deduction made by the AMACT towards the house rent allowance, provident fund, vehicle fuel allowance and medical allowance should not have been done and accordingly, the said part of the award is set aside and further there is no good ground raised by the insurance company for reducing the compensation amount awarded by the AMACT, however, I deem it appropriate to enhance the award. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of Vimal Kanwar (supra) & Meenakshi (supra), this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Monthly Income Rs. 1,28,446/- excluding HRA, PF, Transport allowance, Medical allowance and Income Tax Rs. 1,52,058/- including HRA, PF, Transport allowance and Medical allowance and excluding Income Tax i.e. Rs. 18,166/- 2. Yearly Income Rs. 1,28,446 x 12 = Rs. 15,41,352/- Rs. 1,52,058 x 12 = Rs. 18,24,696/- 3. Future Prospect Rs. (+)15% i.e. 2,31,202 Rs. = 17,72,554/- Rs. (+) 15% i.e. 2,73,704 = Rs. 20,98,400/- 4. Deduction Rs. (-) ¼ = 4,43,138/- Rs. (-) ¼ = 5,24,600/- 5. Yearly Income after deduction Rs. 17,72,554 – 4,43,138 Rs. = 13,29,416/- Rs. 20,98,400 – 5,24,600 = Rs. 15,73,800/- 6. Multiplier Rs. (x) 9 = 1,19,64,744/- Rs. (x) 9 = 1,41,64,200/- 7. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 8. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 9. Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Rs. Rs. 40,000 x 5 = 2,00,000/- Total Rs. 1,20,34,744/- Rs. 1,43,94,200/- 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,20,34,744/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,43,94,200/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 1,20,34,744/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 23,59,456/-. 40,000/- Rs. Rs. 40,000 x 5 = 2,00,000/- Total Rs. 1,20,34,744/- Rs. 1,43,94,200/- 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,20,34,744/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,43,94,200/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 1,20,34,744/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 23,59,456/-. The Respondents are directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 24.12.2019 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 10. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant i.e. MAC No.1487/2022 is allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. The appeal of the Insurance company i.e. MAC No.1173/2022 is dismissed finding no merits. The deposit Tribunal shall pass appropriate order with regard to apportionment, investment and disbursement of the enhanced amount of compensation.