ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) THE dependents of Pabitra Mohan Pati, who lost his life in an accident on 31-6-1985 have moved this Court for interference with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack (in short 'the Tribunal' ). ( 2 ) THE case of the claimants is that on the fateful day, while the deceased was going towards Bhubaneswar in a motor-cycle, the offending car bearing registration No. BPA 7400, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against his motor-cycle as a result of which he fell down and was run over by the offending car. Death was stated to be instantaneous. It was pleaded that in addition to a monthly salary of Rs. 1600/. which the deceased was getting as Manager of Lily Textiles and dyeing Industries, he had additional income by effecting order supplies, and his monthly contribution to his family was Rs. 2,000 / - per month. Both the owner of the offending vehicle, and the Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the insurer') contested the claim. Their plea was a complete denial of the accident as pleaded. It was, however, accepted that the offending vehicle was insured with the insurer. Five witnesses were examined to countenance the claim of the claimants and several documents in support of the income as claimed were also exhibited. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal on consideration of the materials placed came to hold that the deceased was about 29 years of age at the time of accident; his monthly income was Rs. 1600 / - per month and his contribution to the family was Rs. 1,000/ - per month. Considering the age of the deceased, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 15 times to assess the compensation and awarded a sum of Rupees 1,80,000 / -. ( 4 ) MR. Kishore Jena, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that the Tribunal has not considered the materials on record in its proper perspective and has overlooked several documents, which were placed in support of the monthly income of the deceased. He also submits that the multiplier of 15 times adopted by the Tribunal is patently low. ( 4 ) MR. Kishore Jena, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that the Tribunal has not considered the materials on record in its proper perspective and has overlooked several documents, which were placed in support of the monthly income of the deceased. He also submits that the multiplier of 15 times adopted by the Tribunal is patently low. The learned counsel for the insurer submits that considering the entire background and the materials the Tribunal has come to a correct conclusion and the quantification of compensation of Rupees 1,80,000 /- is in order. ( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, I find that the undisputed age of the deceased at the time of accident was 29 years. So far as the income aspect is concerned, the Tribunal has referred to the materials placed and has come to hold that the claimants failed to prove that the deceased was earning anything beyond the salary which he was earning as the Manager of Lily Textiles and Dyeing Industries. No definite material is placed before me to show that the deceased had any income besides his earning from the salary. So far as the contribution is concerned, normally one-third is deducted for personal expenses. Applying that standard, the contribution on the basis of monthly salary of Rs. 1600/ - would be in the neighbourhood of Rs. l100/ -. The annual contribution of the deceased would have been Rs. 13,200/ -. It has been submitted before me that the multiplier adopted is patently low. No definite multiplier can be applied, as is apparent from the fact that various High Courts have adopted various multipliers in respect of deceased belonging to almost the same age group. The Supreme Court in the case of Bishan Devi v. Sirbaksh Singh, 1979 ACJ 496 : AIR 1979 SC 1862 granted multiplier of 16 times when the age of the deceased was 35 years. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pankajani Pradhan, 1990 ACJ 779, this Court felt that a multiplier of 20 times when the age of the deceased was 32 years would be reasonable. Since the deceased in the instant case was 29 years old. I feel that the same multiplier would must the ends of justice. Calculated at that basis, the entitlement of the claimants comes to Rs. Since the deceased in the instant case was 29 years old. I feel that the same multiplier would must the ends of justice. Calculated at that basis, the entitlement of the claimants comes to Rs. 2,64,000 / -. The Tribunal had directed that out of the amount of compensation awarded, a sum of Rs. 25,000 /- in respect of the share of the claimant Mirarani Pati and Rs. 50,000 /- each in respect of the claimants Jasovanta Narayan Pati and Monalisa Pati were to be kept in shape of fixed deposit in a nationalised Bank for a period of 15 years. Out of the additional amount assessed by me, claimants Mirarani, Jasovanta and Monalisa shall each be entitled to Rs. 20,000 / -. Balance Rs. 24,000 /- shall be paid to parents Khetramohan and Rambha equally. In case of realisation of the additional amount assessed by me, further sums of Rs. 12,500/- each, total working out at Rs. 37,500/-, shall be kept in fixed deposits in respect of the claimants Mirarani, Jasovanta and Monalisa for a period of 12 years. The awarded amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim if it is paid within three months from today. If the amount is not paid, within the stipulated period, interest rate applicable would be 12% per annum. The costs of Rs. 500 / - awarded by the Tribunal is maintained. ( 6 ) THE miscellaneous appeal is accordingly disposed of. Order accordingly.