JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - In this appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer challenges the award of the 1st Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack, awarding a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 to claimant-respondent No. 1. 2. The claimant is the son of the deceased who was a Government servant and drawing a salary of about Rs. 1,600 per month at the time of his death. On 28.1.1993, the deceased was proceeding from Marsaghai to Mahakalpada on foot. At that time autorickshaw bearing registration No. OR-05A-2568 belonging to the present respondent No. 2 came from behind and knocked down the deceased who sustained grievous head injury along with fracture and other injuries because of the accident. Subsequently, the deceased was removed to the S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. Claim application was filed claiming Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation. The owner as well as the insurance company in separate written statements denied the allegations made in the claim application. 3. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence on record found that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the autorickshaw driver. It further found that salary of the deceased was Rs. 1,563 per month. Taking the annual contribution to be Rs. 25,000 and applying the multiplier of 8, the Tribunal assessed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation and directed the present appellant to pay the compensation amount, as the vehicle was covered under the policy. The aforesaid award is under challenge at the instance of the insurance company. 4. It was first contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the vehicle had been registered as a pick-up van and insured as such, whereas the claimant claimed that the accident was caused by an autorickshaw. It is, therefore, submitted that the accident in question had not been caused by the vehicle which had been insured with the insurance company, but had been caused by some other vehicle which was an autorickshaw. It was alternatively contended that since the policy related to a pick-up van, the insurance company would not be liable for the accident caused by an autorickshaw. From the evidence on record, it is apparent that the vehicle having registration No. OR-05A-2568 caused the accident and the very same vehicle had been insured with the insurance company. It was alternatively contended that since the policy related to a pick-up van, the insurance company would not be liable for the accident caused by an autorickshaw. From the evidence on record, it is apparent that the vehicle having registration No. OR-05A-2568 caused the accident and the very same vehicle had been insured with the insurance company. It is well-known that a vehicle which is described as pick-up van and runs on three wheels is similar to an autorickshaw which also runs on three wheels and it is very easy to describe a pick-up van as an autorickshaw. The giving of this nomenclature as autorickshaw is immaterial. As a matter of fact, in the Motor Vehicles Act, no distinction is maintained between a pick-up van and an autorickshaw and all such vehicles having unladen weight up to a particular limit are described as light motor vehicles. The certificate of registration and fitness which has been marked as Exh. B has described the vehicle as a pick-up van, but in common parlance such a pick-up van can also be described as an autorickshaw. Technically such vehicle comes within the description of a light motor vehicle. Since admittedly the vehicle bearing No. OR-05A-2568 had been insured and the evidence on record indicated that vehicle bearing the same number had caused the accident, there cannot be any doubt that the vehicle which caused the accident was, in fact, insured with the insurance company. For the said reasons, I do not find any merit in the first contention. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant then contended that question of quantum has to be re-determined by the Claims Tribunal, as there appears to be some mathematical error in the calculation made by the Tribunal. The Tribunal calculated the amount payable in the following words: ... By adopting this multiplier method, compensation in this case can be calculated as follows: 1/3rd of twice the monthly salary i.e., 1/3rd of Rs. 3,126 = Rs. 2,884 will be monthly contribution. Accordingly the annual contribution would come to around Rs. 25,000 ... Evidently, there is some confusion in the calculation method in the aforesaid approach of the Tribunal and this matter could have been remitted to the Tribunal for reconsidering this aspect. 3,126 = Rs. 2,884 will be monthly contribution. Accordingly the annual contribution would come to around Rs. 25,000 ... Evidently, there is some confusion in the calculation method in the aforesaid approach of the Tribunal and this matter could have been remitted to the Tribunal for reconsidering this aspect. The learned Counsel for the claimant-respondent while admitting that there was some confusion in the manner of calculation submitted that instead of remanding the matter for fresh determination, the matter may be finalised in this Court in the spirit of Lok Adalat by reducing the compensation amount, if necessary. 6. It is not disputed that the deceased was receiving a salary of Rs. 1,563 at the time of death and he was aged 52 years. There is no dispute that the deceased would have got increased salary in future had he continued in service. The claimant is the only son of the deceased. Having regard to these aspects, I consider that compensation of a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 would meet the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, in modification of the award of the Tribunal, it is directed that the claimant-respondent is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 with 12 per cent interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till payment, as directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had also directed for keeping certain amount in fixed deposit which is required to be re-calculated. It appears that during the pendency of the appeal a sum of Rs. 25,000 had been deposited by the appellant which has been kept in fixed deposit pursuant to orders of this Court. The said amount along with accrued interest may be refunded to the appellant and the appellant is directed to make deposit of Rs. 1,50,000 with interest as directed by the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of judgment. Out of the said amount to be deposited before the Tribunal, a sum of Rs. 25,000 along with interest on the entire amount be paid in cash to the claimant-respondent and the balance amount may be kept in fixed deposit for a period of three years with permission to withdraw quarterly interest. 7. Subject to the aforesaid direction, the misc. appeal is allowed in part. There will be no order as to costs.