JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. This is an appeal against the award, dated 16.3.2000, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bongaigaon, in MAC Case No. 63 of 1996, whereby the claimants-Appellants, as legal heirs and legal representatives of deceased Khiroda Bala Chowdhury were allowed a total amount of Rs. 64,000.00 as compensation for the death of the said deceased. 2. The case of the claimants-Appellants, as projected before the learned Tribunal, was, in brief, thus. On 02.04.96, while deceased Khiroda Bala Chowdhury was travelling on a scooter as a pillion rider, the scooter, being driven by her husband, Khanindra Narayan Chowdhury, on the National Highway No. 31 at Kukurmari, under Dhaligaon Police Station district Bongaigaon, the offending bus came driven at very high speed, rashly and negligently and dashed against the said scooter causing injuries to both the driver as well as the pillion-rider. Both the injured succumbed to their injuries at the very spot of the accident. The claimants-Appellants accordingly sought for compensation of Rs. 3,10,000.00 for the death of the said Khiroda Bala Choudhuiy. 3. The Respondents contested the claim and alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of deceased Khanindra Narayan Chowdhury. Both sides adduced evidence. The learned Tribunal concluded that there was contributory negligence on the part of deceased Khanindra Narayan Chowdhury, who was driving the scooter at the relevant time. The learned Tribunal determined that the total compensation payable to the Appellants was to the tune of Rs. 1,28,000.00 and that the Appellants were entitled, on account of the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the said scooter, to receive a sum of Rs. 64,000.00 as compensation. Aggrieved by this award, the claimants have, now, approached this Court by way of the present appeal. 4. I have perused the materials on record including the impugned award. I have heard Mr. G. Soren, learned Counsel for the Appellants, and Mr. B.K. Purkayastha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1, namely, National Insurance Company Ltd. 5. Aggrieved by this award, the claimants have, now, approached this Court by way of the present appeal. 4. I have perused the materials on record including the impugned award. I have heard Mr. G. Soren, learned Counsel for the Appellants, and Mr. B.K. Purkayastha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1, namely, National Insurance Company Ltd. 5. During the course of the hearing of this appeal, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that against the impugned award, so far as the same related to the compensation awarded to the claimant-Appellants for the death of deceased Khanindra Narayan Chowdhury, MAC Appeal No. 68/2000 was instituted in this Court and that the same has been decided by a Division Bench of this "Court, on 11.4.2002, which has been reported in 2002 (3) GLT 437 Ambika Charan Choudhury v. D.M. National Insurance Co. and Ors. and that in this judgment, the Division Bench of this Court has held that there was no contributory negligence on the part of deceased Khanindra Narayan Chowdhury i.e. the husband of the deceased, Khiroda Bala Chowdhury. 6. In view of the above finding arrived at in MAC Case No. 68/2000 aforementioned, it could not be lawfully contended before me, on behalf of the Respondents, that there was any contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the said scooter. In consequence of this position, we are, now, required to determine as to what amount of compensation shall be paid to the Appellants. 7. It may, now, be noted that the learned Tribunal, while considering the above aspect of the matter, concluded, upon a threadbare discussion of the evidence on record, that the income of deceased Khiroda Bala Choudhury was Rs. 12,000.00 per annum. For the reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal in this regard, I notice nothing to make this Court hold that the conclusion with regard to the annual income of deceased Khiroda Bala Chowdhury, arrived at by the learned Tribunal, was incorrect. Even if one third amount of Rs. 12,000.00 per annum is kept excluded as personal expenses of deceased Khiroda Bala Chowdhury, it logically follows that an amount of Rs. 8,000.00 was being spent, annually, by the said deceased for the maintenance of the Appellants. Even if one third amount of Rs. 12,000.00 per annum is kept excluded as personal expenses of deceased Khiroda Bala Chowdhury, it logically follows that an amount of Rs. 8,000.00 was being spent, annually, by the said deceased for the maintenance of the Appellants. The loss of income to the claimants as a result of the death of the said deceased, is, thus, to the tune of Rs. 8,000.00 annually. This position could not be disputed by the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. Now, in view of the fact that the said deceased met with her death at the age of 37 years, when the multiplier of 16 is applied, the compensation comes to the tune of Rs. 1,28,000.00. To this amount needs to be added a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as funeral expenses. Thus, the total amount of compensation payable to the claimants rise to the tune of Rs. 1,30,000.00. Hence, the amount of Rs. 1,30,000.00 determined as compensation in this appeal, shall be payable to the Appellants. 9. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this appeal partly succeeds. The claimant Appellants are hereby held entitled to receive a total sum of Rs. 1,30,000.00 as compensation. The amount, if any, already paid to the claimants-Appellants shall, however, stand deducted from this total amount of compensation. The amount of compensation, so awarded, shall be paid to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of making of the claim application till realization of the entire awarded amount. 10. With the modifications in the award, as indicated hereinabove, this appeal shall stand disposed of. 11. No order as to costs. 12. Send back the LCRs.