JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This is an appeal by the insurer u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). Only grievance of insurer is the quantum of compensation determined by the tribunal. No cross-objection has been filed. 2. On 2.7.1986 at about 4 p.m., deceased sustained injuries on account of accident by the motor cycle bearing No. 4096 for which insurer has undertaken to take up the liability of the owner in terms of the insurance policy. Injured was removed to Balipadar Hospital with head injuries and from there he was removed to Bhanjanagar Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. 3. Finding of the Tribunal that death was due to negligent driving of the vehicle is well proved. It is also proved that claimants are entitled to compensation. Only question for consideration is whether the determination of compensation by the Tribunal is just. 4. Age of the deceased at the time of his death was held by the Tribunal to be 55 years though it was claimed by the claimants to be 45 years. Mr. P. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant, does not challenge the age as found by the Tribunal. On perusal of evidence I am satisfied that finding of the Tribunal is correct. Since claimants are widow and minor sons of the deceased, their dependency would have continued for the entire period of longevity of the deceased which in India is the average 70 years. Thus, for fifteen years more one or more of the claimants would have continued to be dependants and loss of dependency would be for fifteen years. 5. Deceased was a mason earning Rs. 30/-per day. Tribunal held that annual loss of dependency was Rs. 7,200/-. It applied the multiplier of 11 to determine the compensation on account of loss of dependency. This is the grievance of Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the insurer-appellant. Normally insurer has no say in respect of determination of compensation. In this case, however, owner did not contest before the Tribunal. Accordingly, I permitted Mr. Roy to make submissions on the question of quantum. 6. Mr. Roy submitted that a mason even if accepted to be a skilled workman would have the capacity to earn till the age of 60 years in the maximum and thereafter he would be dependent on his sons. Accordingly, I permitted Mr. Roy to make submissions on the question of quantum. 6. Mr. Roy submitted that a mason even if accepted to be a skilled workman would have the capacity to earn till the age of 60 years in the maximum and thereafter he would be dependent on his sons. If some materials to that effect would have been brought on record, I would have considered the same. Capacity to do physical skilled work would depend upon health, stamina and necessity of a person. No evidence has been adduced to that effect. Accordingly, in absence of any material to that effect, I am not able to accept the submission of Mr. Roy in the present case. 7. Mr. Roy thereafter submitted that in case deceased would have died of accident in course of his employment, claimants would have received compensation of about Rs. 48,000/-from his employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act and there is no reason why a higher compensation would be awarded to the claimants in this case. According to Mr. Roy, compensation is not a profit to be earned by the claimants and cannot be a penalty for negligence and merely on account of change of forum, there should be no increase in the compensation which may amount to profit to claimants and penalty on the owner. He developed by submitting that in case the employer would have caused the accident to the deceased by the motor cycle, in course of work, insurer would have been liable to pay compensation only under the Workmen's Compensation Act. By change of the owner of the motor cycle if higher compensation is awarded, it would amount to penalty for which the owner was being prosecuted for his negligence. I had accepted such a contention earlier. But in the meantime, Division Bench has overruled my view. Accordingly, in view of the decision of Division Bench of this court which is binding on me, I am not able to accept the contention of Mr. Roy until view of the Division Bench is overruled. 8. Next contention of Mr. Roy is that a sum of Rs. 72,000/- would have been sufficient to earn annual interest equal to the loss of dependency. Accordingly, multiple of 11 ought not to be applied. No doubt, annual interest is a basis for determination of compensation. Roy until view of the Division Bench is overruled. 8. Next contention of Mr. Roy is that a sum of Rs. 72,000/- would have been sufficient to earn annual interest equal to the loss of dependency. Accordingly, multiple of 11 ought not to be applied. No doubt, annual interest is a basis for determination of compensation. Principle of multiplier is also on the same basis under the Land Acquisition Act. However, while considering the interest available cost of collecting tine same is taken into consideration. There is no evidence that in the village of the dependants there is availability of sen/ice of a bank. Accordingly, in this case, I am not inclined to interfere with the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal. 9. Loss of consolation (Sic. consortium) and funeral expenses have been correctly assessed at Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 2,000/-. Net sum of Rs. 85,000/- determined is mathematically wrong. It should have been Rs. 86,200/-. However, in absence of appeal, I am not inclined to interfere with the determination of just compensation at Rs. 85,000/-. 10. Tribunal has directed payment of interest from 10.7.1986 to the date of payment within three months of award failing which interest will be payable at 12 percent in place of 6 per cent. I am inclined to hold that interest at 6 per cent would be adequate if payment is made on or before 15th December, 1990 failing which interest is payable at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of application till date of payment. Cost of Rs. 300/- awarded by the Tribunal is affirmed. Further direction that Rs. 60,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit for a period of ten years with facility of payment of interest quarterly is also confirmed. Balance amount shall be paid to the claimants. 11. In the result, appeal is dismissed subject to aforesaid modification. No costs. Final Result : Dismissed