ORDER : Heard the parties and with their consent this appeal is disposed of under ORDER :41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. On 27.9.1995 Dr. Sunil Kumar Rajhans, aged about 28 years, while travelling on bus, bearing registration no. BR 20C 6661 from Bhagalpur to Bokaro, died when the said bus met an accident and fell into the paddy field. 3. His widow and minor son filed Claim Case No. 4 of 1996 for compenstion under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The tribunal, on the basis of materials on record, found that accident took place, due to rash and negligent driving and Dr. Sunil Kumar Rajhans lost his life therein. The deceased had completed internship and Junior House surgeonship and he was doing housemanship in Paediatrics and was getting stipend of Rs.2000/- per month. It is said that the deceased was also earning for working in the Chambers/clinic of C.Ws. 2 to 5 as Assistant. However, the tribunal estimated his gross monthly income at Rs.5000/- and after deducting 1/3rd thereof calculated annual dependency at Rs.39,600/- (Rs.3300 x 12) and used 18 multiplier (Rs.39,600.00 x 18 = 7,12,800/-). The tribunal also granted additional compensation of Rs.9500/- (Rs.2000.00 for funeral expenses plus Rs.5000/- for loss of consortium, plus Rs.2500.00 for loss of estate). Total amount of compensation came to Rs.7,22,300/-. 4. Mr. Ajay Kumar, counsel for the appellant-insurance company submitted that multiplier method should be applied in such a way that the dependency calculated in money value should fetch the same amount of dependency to the claimants, if the awarded amount is deposited in bank or other financial institution in fixed deposit. I find that in the present case multiplier method has been applied and considering the age of the deceased the tribunal used multiplier of 16. According to Mr. Kumar on applying multiplier of 9 to the annual dependency of Rs.39,600/- compensation amount comes to Rs.3,56,400/-, plus Rs.9500/- as additional compensation on the aforesaid heads. The total amount comes to Rs.3,65,900. If the said amount is kept in fixed deposit, it would fetch interest of more than the amount of aforesaid annual dependency. The claimant no. 1 in the present case has got one minor daughter and one minor son. Besides this the mother of the deceased is also alive. 5. The total amount comes to Rs.3,65,900. If the said amount is kept in fixed deposit, it would fetch interest of more than the amount of aforesaid annual dependency. The claimant no. 1 in the present case has got one minor daughter and one minor son. Besides this the mother of the deceased is also alive. 5. Considering all these matters, in my opinion, by using multiplier of 10 to the yearly dependency of Rs.39,600/- in the present case, compensation comes to 3,96,000/- besides this the claimant no. 1 is also entitled to additional compensation for loss of consortium. So in my view, around figure of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation shall be the appropriate amount of compensation. If the said amount is kept in fixed deposit, it would fetch interest of Rs.40,000/- per annum which would be more than the amount of annual dependency. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the amount of compensation is fixed at Rs.4,00,000/- (four lacs only). I find that interest @ 12 per annum from the, date of filing the claim case till payment is justified and needs no interference. A sum of Rs.50,000/- already received by the claimants by way of interim compensation is to be deducted. Further a sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited in this court vide chalan no. 165 dated 5.8.1998 for the purpose of this appeal, under proviso to Section 173 of the Act as permitted to be withdrawn by the claimants-respondents 1 and 2 on proper verification and in accordance with law. The said amount is also to be deducted.