JUDGMENT : S.K. Mohanty, J. - This is an appeal u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Appellant Nos. 1 to 4 are minor sons and daughters and appellant No. 5, the mother of one Rama Chandra Sethi, who lost his life in an accident on 24.12.1982. Before the Tribunal compensation to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal, however, allowed Rs. 36,000/- only along with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of application in favour of the appellants. Such award is assailed by the appellants on the ground that the compensation and interest awarded are on the lower side. 2. It is not disputed that the deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of accident and that the appellants are his legal representatives. Basing on the decumentary evidence which revealed drawal of Rs. 483/- per month by the deceased, the Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 500/- and loss of dependency at Rs. 300/-. Adopting a multiplier of 15 and deducting 1/6th therefrom towards lump sum payment and further 1/5th towards uncertainties, the Tribunal quantified the entitlement of the claimants at Rs. 36,000/-. The Tribunal also allowed interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of application. Since the vehicle which caused the accident was validly insured, the liability was fastened on the insurer. 3. As regards loss of dependency, it was argued on behalf of the claimants that it should have been determined at four-fifths of the income of the deceased. The claimants have not led any evidence to show whether the deceased was living jointly or separately from his family members. In the circumstance, it cannot be said that the loss of dependency as determined by the Tribunal is unjust. 4. It was next admitted that the multiplier adopted is low and the multiplier method having been adopted, there was no scope of deduction towards lump sum payment and uncertainties. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti 1966 ACJ 57 (SC), the deceased was aged 30 years and he had left behind him his widow, one son and two daughters. In this case, the Apex Court held the multiplier of 15 as correct. In The Branch Manager, The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti 1966 ACJ 57 (SC), the deceased was aged 30 years and he had left behind him his widow, one son and two daughters. In this case, the Apex Court held the multiplier of 15 as correct. In The Branch Manager, The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Patra and Others law on the point has been succinctly stated as follows: The three generally accepted modes of determination of compensation are: (i) lump sum payment after determining the compensation, taking into account the annual loss of dependency multiplied in estimated life span, after making necessary deduction therefrom, (ii) the multiplier system, where calculation is made on the basis of annual loss of dependency multiplied by a suitable multiplier taking into consideration various factors; and (iii) interest system, awarding lump sum to the dependents receipt of an amount by way of interest for the annual loss out of the amount of compensation determined by the Court. It would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and it is for the Court to adopt any of the aforesaid modes which according to it would work out a just compensation. In the year 1966, the Apex Court considered the multiplier of 15 to be correct. During last quarter of century, there has been increase in life span of an average Indian. In this background, in the aforesaid Orissa decision, where the deceased was aged about 30 years, multiplier of 16 adopted by the Tribunal was considered reasonable. In the facts of this case, I feel the multiplier of 16 should be adopted. Accordingly, the compensation amount which the claimants are entitled to is assessed at Rs. 57,600/- Having applied the multiplier method, in my view, there is no scope for further deduction towards lump sum payment and uncertainties of life. 5. So far as the interest is concerned, it needs no emphasis that grant of interest is discretionary u/s 110-CC of the Act. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal does not appear to be unreasonable and, therefore, no interference is called for. 6. It reveals from the records of the Tribunal that the sum awarded along with interest has been deposited on 6.5.1987. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal does not appear to be unreasonable and, therefore, no interference is called for. 6. It reveals from the records of the Tribunal that the sum awarded along with interest has been deposited on 6.5.1987. The balance amount shall be paid to the claimants within three months hence and in default, the excess sum awarded in this appeal shall carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment. The Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed in part.