Judgment 1. Heard the parties. 2. On behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company a serious dispute has been raised only with regard to method of calculating the compensation and the amount derived on that basis. The appellant does not dispute the annual income of the deceased as calculated by the Tribunal nor there is any dispute with regard to the age of the deceased. The monthly income of the deceased has been found to be Rs. 1500/- and on that basis annual dependecy appears to have been calculated without making any deduction towards the expenses of the deceased and thereafter, a multiplier of 35 has been chosen by the Tribunal by holding that the deceased was 35 years of age and the life expectancy of a healthy Indian should be taken as 70 years. 3. In my view, the error by the learned Tribunal in not making any distinction between annual income and annual dependency is apparent but it is of minor nature, but so far as selection of 35 as multiplier is concerned, the same is a gross error and the same has been done without keeping in mind any of the judgments of the Supreme Court and of this Court. To say the least, it was not expected of a Judicial Officer of the rank of Additional District Judge to commit such apparent mistake. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon judgments of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1994 SC 1631 (Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas) and 1996(4) SCC 362 (U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others vs. Trilok Chandra and others) and also judgments of this Court reported in 1991(1) PLJR 400 and 837 to submit that while selecting the multiplier for computing money value of compensation, one of the relevant criteria is as to what return the compensation amount would fetch on annual basis if kept in fixed deposit in a bank or in financial institution. This principle finds mention in paragraph 17 of the judgment in the case of Susamma Thomas (supra) which has been approved in paragraph 12 of the judgment in the case of Trilok Chandra (supra) and followed by this Court in several judgments. This principle finds mention in paragraph 17 of the judgment in the case of Susamma Thomas (supra) which has been approved in paragraph 12 of the judgment in the case of Trilok Chandra (supra) and followed by this Court in several judgments. On behalf of the appellant, it has further been submitted that the deceased was a Khalasi of 35 years of age and in such a situation, there was no substantial prospect of future promotion and that the dependants are his parents who are also of advance age and hence, multiplier should be selected keeping in view the age of the dependants. 5. On behalf of the respondents, it has been submitted that a Khalasi can always learn driving and become driver and earn higher and in the facts of the case, there was some scope of betterment of the deceased in future scope. 6. Keeping in view all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my view, Rs. 18,000/- has to be taken as the annual income of the deceased, out of which the annual dependency will be 2/3rd i.e. Rs. 12,000/- per annum and keeping in view that an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- is likely to earn as annual return of Rs. 12,000/- if deposited in a bank of financial institution, the correct multiplier in this case shouldbe10. Accordingly, in this case the amount of compensation on the basis of dependency and multiplier will be Rs. 1,20,000/- and to that, another amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be added on account of funeral expenses, loss of consortium, loss of estate etc. and thus, in my view, an amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- is just compensation in this case. 7. Accordingly, the judgment and award under appeal is partially set aside and modified and the final compensation payable by the appellant is determined as Rs. 1,30,000/-. The aforesaid amount must be paid to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum calculated from the date of the claim, within two months from today. As suggested by learned counsel for the appellant, the statutory amount deposited for the purpose of this appeal shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the claimants-respondents and the balance that may be found due on accounting, should be paid by the Insurance Company within the aforesaid period of two months.