JUDGMENT G.D. Dube, J. - The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaunpur has awarded a sum of Rs. 38, 360/- with pendent lite and future interest at the rate of six percent per annum to the claimants. The Tribunal had also directed that the awarded amount be divided equally amongst the widow, sons and daughters of the deceased. 2. It has not been disputed that the deceased had died as result of accident which took place on 17.11.73. The deceased had boarded the bus of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. The bus was being driven at a very high speed. The deceased was sitting on the seat of the conductor. The driver of the bus had tried to take over some other vehicle and during that maneuvering the deceased was thrown out in a jerk of the vehicle. He received serious injuries. Later on he died on 20.11.73 in Sir Sunder Lai Hospital, Varanasi. The Corporation had alleged in defence that the accident took place on account of negligence of the deceased. He did not pay heed to the direction of the Conductor to sit inside the bus. Rather he had travelled on the foot-board, and, therefore, was thrown out when the driver had turned the bus to avoid collision with other vehicle. 3. The Tribunal, on the appraisal of evidence produced before it, came to the conclusion that the death occurred due to negligence of the driver and Conductor of the bus. The dependency of the claimants was assessed at Rs. 140/- per menses. The life expectancy of the deceased was calculated at sixty five years. It was held that the deceased was thirty four years of age at the time of death. Hence the compensation was calculated at Rs. 32, 360/-. The Tribunal had also awarded Rs. 1, 000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 5, 000/- towards loss of husband's consortium to the widow. Aggrieved by the above order of award, the Corporation has come in appeal. 4. It has been argued by learned Counsel for the appellant that the calculation of compensation was erroneous. At the most the compensation should have been calculated by taking multiplier of 16 years. It was urged that the deceased was earning about Rs. 300/- per menses. The amount allegedly spent by the claimants towards the claim was calculated at Rs. 200/-. It was further urged that the widow was getting Rs. At the most the compensation should have been calculated by taking multiplier of 16 years. It was urged that the deceased was earning about Rs. 300/- per menses. The amount allegedly spent by the claimants towards the claim was calculated at Rs. 200/-. It was further urged that the widow was getting Rs. 60/- per m ensem as family pension. Hence the total dependency comes to Rs. 140/-. It was contended that the main purpose of compensation is to award such an amount which if deposited in Bank may provide that amount which the claimants would have obtained for their maintenance during the life time of the deceased. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents urged that the lower Court has calculated the claim on the basis of contribution to the family at the rate of Rs. 140/- per mensem. . The deceased had died at the age of thirty four years. He was a Government servant. He would have retired at the age of fifty eight years. Hence ignoring the amount which the deceased would have obtained by way of increments, the claimants ought to be granted the loss of pecuniary benefits to the claimants from the deceased for twenty four years. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has cited a case in Managing Director, T.T. Corporation v. M. Janardhanam AIR Mad. 151 : 1 (1987) ACC 218 wherein it was held by a Division Bench of that court that deposit of amount in Governzment guaranteed deposits would be relevant guiding factor for determining compensation. It was held that the lump sum compensation is granted not for being frittered and spent away within no time when large multiplier is arrived at, but the Court presumes that money if invested in Government guaranteed deposits would fetch such amount as the deceased would have contributed towards maintenance of his dependents. 7. If the case is examined on the basis of the case law cited by learned Counsel for the appellant, then the decision of the lower Court does not appear to be unreasonable and based on surprises or conjectures. 8. The lower Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 1, 000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 5, 000/- towards loss of husband's consortium to the widow. The award towards these items has not been challenged. The only disputed amount is Rs. 32, 360/-. 8. The lower Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 1, 000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 5, 000/- towards loss of husband's consortium to the widow. The award towards these items has not been challenged. The only disputed amount is Rs. 32, 360/-. The lower Court had come to the conclusion that total dependency was at the rate of Rs. 140/- per menses. The deceased had died at the age of thirty four years. The life expectancy was calculated at sixty five years. This too has not been disputed. Hence even if it is considered that the deceased would have continued in service till fifty eight years, then there would have been a total loss of dependency of about twenty four years. Hence the total loss to the claimants would have been to the tune of Rs. 40, 320/-. Hence allowing a reduction towards uncertainties of life the figure arrived at has been scaled down to Rs. 32, 360/- by the lower Court. This cannot be said to be an unreasonable compensation on the higher side. I, therefore, find no force in the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that the lower Court has erred in granting excessive compensation allowing an extra income more than what the deceased would have contributed to the claimants for their maintenance. The fast decreasing value of the rupee and the inflatory rise in prices the amount of Rs. 32, 360/- will hardly fetch the bare necessity of life to the claimants. Considering all the above factors, I do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the lower Court. 9. It has been urged by learned Counsel for the respondents that under Order 41 Rule 33, C.P.C., this Court should suo motu grant twelve percent interest on the awarded amount. There is no justification for this increase. The interest is granted only with an intention to compensate the decree-holder from any loss which may occur on account of delay in payment of the amount. Such heavy interest cannot be granted to afford an additional income to the claimants and thus prompt the respondents to leave the decree unexecuted for some time as possible and earn an extra income which they would not obtain by in vesting the awarded amount in suitable deposit in a Bank. 10. However, I find that apportionment of the amount amongst the claimants is not proper. 10. However, I find that apportionment of the amount amongst the claimants is not proper. Rs. 5, 000/- was awarded to the widow for loss of consortium with the deceased. This amount should go exclusively to the widow. The remaining amount should be distributed equally amongst the claimants. 11. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The order of the lower Court is modified to this extent that out of the awarded amount, Rs. 5, 000/- shall be paid exclusively to the widow and the remaining amount shall be divided and paid equally to each of the claimants. There shall be no order as to costs.