Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

1. The appellant- Insurance Company is in Appeal against the judgment and Award of compensation vide Judgment/ Award dated 30.05.2023 passed by learned District Judge- II- Cum- Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad, in Motor Accident Claim Case No.158 of 2019 whereby and whereunder, a compensation of Rs.90,89,500/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants against the Insurance Company which has been held to be insurer of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. JH-10-AU 3844.

2. The instant Misc. Appeal is under-challenge mainly on the ground that the deceased was an employee of M/s BCCL and after his death, his wife [Binita Devi] is getting family pension. It is contended that this amount should have been deducted in assessment of loss of future income by the learned Tribunal. However, the learned Tribunal has computed the Award of compensation without factoring the amount of pension received by the claimants. In this regard, reliance is placed on (i) Vishavjit Singh & Ors. Vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited & Anr SLP (Civil) No.13442 of 2020 (ii) Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Shashi Sharma and Ors (iii) Krishna & Ors Vs Tek Chand & Ors SLP (C) No.5044/2019.

3. The second ground that has been taken is with regard to interest awarded under the head of Future Prospect. It is contended that the assessment of compensation under this head is towards the anticipated future loss arising after the death of the deceased, and therefore, no loss of interest can be awarded under this head.

4. Heard the counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants.

5. The three Judges’ Bench in the case of Sabastiani Lakra & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Anr., reported in 2019(17) SCC 465 in which Shashi Sharma case (supra) has also been considered, after discussing at length the various authorities on the point has held that the amounts which accrue to the claimants as a result of some contract or act which deceased performed in his life-time (like on account of insurance, bank deposits, shares, debentures, pensionary benefits, gratuity or grant of employment to a kin of deceased) cannot be said to be outcome or result of death of deceased in a motor vehicle accident even though these amounts may go into the hands of claimants only after the death of deceased.

6. Under the circumstance the plea that pensionary benefit needs to be detected in an assessment of income is not sustainable and is accordingly dismissed.

7. With regard to the interest under the head of Future Prospect is concerned, reliance by the counsel on behalf of the claimants on the ratio laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Niru @ Niharika and Ors [2025 SCC OnLine (SC) 1431] wherein similar plea was taken and that was rejected by observing that :-

                  ‘10. We cannot but observe that there was nothing stopping the Insurance Company from settling the claim on a computation, on receipt of intimation of the accident, especially since the determination of compensation for loss of dependency, on death being occasioned in a motor vehicle accident, can be determined as evident from the judicial precedents; at least provisionally.

                  11. In fact, it is due to the repudiation of or refusal to consider the claim that the claimants are driven to the Tribunal. When the matter is pending before the Tribunal or in appeal before the higher forums, the claimants are deprived of the compensation for future prospects. If they are paid in time, it could be utilized by the claimants and on failure, the loss of dependency would force the claimants to source their livelihood from elsewhere. This is sought to be compensated at least minimally by award of interest, which oftener them ever is nominal also since only simple interest is awarded. If the amounts were disbursed to the claimants on a rough calculation, on intimation of the accident to the Insurance Company, subject to the award of the Tribunal, necessarily there would not have been any interest liability atleast to the extent of the disbursement made.’

8. Considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, the second plea i.e. so far interest is concerned, the same is also not sustainable in view of the direct authority of the Apex Court in this regard.

                  Miscellaneous Appeal accordingly stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

9. Statutory amount deposited at the time of filing of the miscellaneous appeal by the appellant- Insurance Company, be remitted to the learned Tribunal, for being disbursed/ adjusted to the claimants against the final compensation amount.