JUDGMENT PRADIP MOHANTY — This appeal is directed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the order dated 21.8.1999 passed by the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack, in Misc.Case No.143 of 1988. 2. The fact in gist is, on 28.8.1987 at about 6.30 A.M. while Dhusasan Setha was proceeding to his village on a bi-cycle on the National High Way No.5, near Gandarpur in Cuttack, the offending truck bearing registration No.OSU 3918 being driven in rash and negligent manner came at a high speed from his back side and dashed against him. As a result, said Dhusasan Setha fell down with severe bleeding injuries on his person and while he was about to be removed to the S.C.B. Medical College Hospital he succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, being the wife and the minor children of deceased Dhusasan Setha, filed a petition under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the learned Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack, for compensation on account of the accidental death of the only earning member of their family. The opposite party No. 1-insured though filed the written statement disowning the contentions made in the claim peti¬tion, subsequently did not contest the case. The opposite party No.2 - Insurance Company only contested the case by filing the written statement denying therein the allegations made in the claim petition. 3. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, held that the offending truck caused the fatal accident as a result of which Dhusasan Setha succumbed to the injuries and, accordingly, awarded Rs. 88,700/-as compen¬sation in favour of the claimants-respondents and directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the award amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and cost within a month. Being aggrieved by the said order the appellant-Insurance Company has approached the portals of this Court in this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. In course of hearing, Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently submitted that the award of compensation by the learned Tribunal is excessive and the learned Tribunal has not properly assessed evidential value of the witnesses and thus the award is liable to be set aside. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the respondent-claimants, on the other hand, refutting to the contention of Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently submitted that the award of compensation by the learned Tribunal is excessive and the learned Tribunal has not properly assessed evidential value of the witnesses and thus the award is liable to be set aside. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the respondent-claimants, on the other hand, refutting to the contention of Mr. Roy, took this Court to the evidence on record and submitted that the award of the learned Tribunal is rather inadequate. Mr. Mohanty, in support of his argument cited a cetana of decisions of the apex Court as well as other High Courts and urged that this Court has the power to enhance the award. 5. On a reappraisal of the evidence on record, this Court glanced through the evidence of the witnesses. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased-Dhusasan Setha. She stated that on 28.8.87 at about 6.30 a.m. near the O.M.P. Chhak of Cuttack town the acci¬dent took place. Though she had not seen the accident, on hearing from some persons she came to the spot and saw the occurrence, but the vehicle was not seized. She stated that her husband was serving in the Orissa Government Press, Khapuria. He was 35 years old and was getting pay of Rs. 1000/- per month and out of it, he was contributing Rs. 700/- per month for their maintenance. Except for some minor discrepancies, nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination so as to disbelieve her evidence. P.W.2, the Establishment Officer of the Orissa Government Press, stated that the deceased was a Class-IV employee and he was getting monthly salary of Rs. 826/-. He has further stated that had deceased Dhusasan Setha been alive, he would have drawn 182% Dearness Allowance over his basic pay. The evidence of this witness remains unshakened in the cross-examination. P.W.3, Krushna Chandra Mandal is said to be the eye witness to the occurrence. He stated that he had opened a tea-stall near the bus stand O.M.P. Chhak. On 28.8.87 at about 6.30 A.M., when he was opening his tea-stall, the offending truck OSU 3918 came from Madhupatna side at a high speed and dashed against the deceased as well as the tea-stall as a result of which the deceased fell down with severe bleeding injuries and he was taken to the hospi¬tal for treatment. In cross-examination, the evidence of this witness has stood unshakened. In cross-examination, the evidence of this witness has stood unshakened. Nothing incredible has been brought out in the cross-examination so as to disbelieve the evidence of this witness. Going through the evidence on record as well as the finding of the learned trial Judge, this Court holds that the conclusion arrived at by him remains unassailable. 6. So far as the quantum of award is concerned, Mr. Mohan¬ty, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents, assails the same and submits that the deceased was a Government employee and had he been alive, he would have substantiated a good amount in future for maintenance of the family members. Considering the oral evidence on record, what Mr. Mohanty submitted has some force for consideration. The measure of damage is the pecuniary loss suffered and is likely to be suffered by each dependent. Thus except where there is express statutory direction to the contrary, the damages to be awarded to a depend¬ent of a deceased person under the Fatal Accident Act must take into account any pecuniary benefit accruing to that dependent in consequent of the death of the deceased. It is the net loss of the balance which constitutes the measure of damages. The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain at the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his depend¬ents, and deduct therefrom such part of his income as the de¬ceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependents. Then that should be capitalized of the depend¬ents. Then that should be capitalized by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of year’s purchase. 7. In assessing the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has worked out the loss of dependancy due to the death of the deceased to be Rs. 79,200/- by holding the annual loss of Rs. 6,600/- adopting multiplicity of 12. It is found that the de¬ceased was a Government employee. He died at the age of 45 as is evident from the post-mortem report, Ext. 5. Therefore, 13 ap¬pears to be suitable multiplication to be adopted in this case. Hence, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 85,800/- (rupees eighty-five thousand and eight hundred). 6,600/- adopting multiplicity of 12. It is found that the de¬ceased was a Government employee. He died at the age of 45 as is evident from the post-mortem report, Ext. 5. Therefore, 13 ap¬pears to be suitable multiplication to be adopted in this case. Hence, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 85,800/- (rupees eighty-five thousand and eight hundred). Accordingly, the just compensation in this case is held to be Rs. 95,300/- (Rupees ninety-five thousand and three hundred). 8. In the result, the appeal is disposed of by enhancing the award amount to Rs. 95,300/- (rupees ninety-five thousand and three hundred). The impugned award of the Tribunal is accordingly modified. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim application within two months hence before the Tribunal. Appeal disposed of.