Judgment : M. Y. EQBAL, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants are the widow and children of late Pramod Kumar bartiyar who died in an unfortunate motor accident which took place on 18. 10. 1999 by Maruti van bearing registration No. BR 14-B 6908 at Charhi Road, Hazaribagh. The deceased was aged 40 years and was posted as Senior Inspector in the Steel authority of India Limited and was getting a gross salary of Rs. 11,180 p. m. The claimants-appellants claimed compensation of Rs. 70,00,000. ( 2 ) CLAIMS Tribunal took into consideration the net monthly salary, i. e. , Rs. 8,860 which the deceased used to bring home after certain deductions and calculated the annual salary at Rs. 1,06,320 and capitalised it on 12 years purchase which come to rs. 12,75,840. After deducting 1/3srd from the total amount the Tribunal assessed compensation at Rs. 8,50,560 and awarded interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. Claims Tribunal further held that if this amount of compensation (Rs. 8,50,560) is kept in long term fixed deposit for which the bank interest is 9 per cent per annum, it will fetch Rs. 6,000 per month which is the actual loss to clalmants. The appellants being not satisfied with the said award preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation. ( 3 ) ON 2. 7. 2003 this appeal was put up for hearing and in course of argument we tried to get the clalm settled at Rs. 10,00,000 but the insurance company did not agree to settle the clalm. However, at the request of Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company we referred the matter to the Lok Adalat but before the lok Adalat the clalm could not be settled. Hence this appeal has been listed for hearing and disposal on merit. ( 4 ) MR. G. Mustafa the learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned award mainly on the ground that clalms Tribunal gravely erred in taking the net home salary of the deceased instead of the gross salary which was admittedly rs. 11,180 for the purpose of assessing the compensation. The learned counsel further submitted that Tribunal has further committed illegality in taking only 12 years of purchase for calculating the compensation. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel. 11,180 for the purpose of assessing the compensation. The learned counsel further submitted that Tribunal has further committed illegality in taking only 12 years of purchase for calculating the compensation. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel. ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, the monthly gross salary of the deceased was Rs. 11,180 which is evident from Exh. 10 which is the pay slip issued by the Steel Authority of India limited, Central Coal Organisation. After certain deductions towards the provident fund, etc. , the deceased was bringing net salary of Rs. 8,861 every month. Tribunal has failed to take into consideration that the amount which the deceased used to get deducted from his salary towards provident fund, etc. , was his personal savings for the purpose of future need of the family members like education and marriage. Whatever deduction made was being saved in the account of the deceased. Because of death the clalmants have been deprived of those amounts also which the deceased used to save for them. In our considered opinion therefore, it is the gross salary and not the take home salary which shall be taken for the purpose of calculation of the monthly loss to the appellants. If this amount of rs. 11,180 being the salary of the deceased is taken into consideration, annual salary which the deceased used to get comes to rs. 1,34,160. Deducting 1/3rd of the aforesaid amount as expenses of the deceased, annual dependency comes to Rs. 89,440. ( 6 ) IT is well settled that the multiplier represents the number of years purchase on which the loss of dependency is capitalised. It is equally well settled that the compensation amount should be such amount which if invested in long terms deposit may take care of the dependency perpetually. Although the Tribunal has taken notice of this proposition and held that if the amount is kept in long term deposit the interest payable would be 9 per cent but has failed to appreciate the fact that the interest payable by the bank in long term deposit has reduced to 4 per cent to 5 per cent. Amount awarded by the Tribunal, therefore, if deposited in long term deposit will not take care of the dependency of the clalmants perpetually. ( 7 ) BE that as it may. We are of the view that if the annual dependency of Rs. Amount awarded by the Tribunal, therefore, if deposited in long term deposit will not take care of the dependency of the clalmants perpetually. ( 7 ) BE that as it may. We are of the view that if the annual dependency of Rs. 89,440 is capitalised by 12 years of purchase the minimum compensation amount comes to rs. 10,73,280. As noticed above after deducting 1/3rd of gross salary of Rs. 11,180 the dependency comes to Rs. 7,454 per month. We are therefore, of the view that if a sum of Rs. 10,73,000 is deposited in long term deposit it will at least take care of the dependency of the clalmants, besides the above, admittedly the deceased was a young man of 40 years and was holding the post of Senior Inspector in Steel Authority of India Limited and he had a future career and prospect. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered opinion that compensation of Rs. 10,73,000 will be reasonable compensation. Tribunal has not taken the right approach in assessing compensation payable to the dependants of the deceased. ( 8 ) WE therefore, allow this appeal and enhance the amount of compensation to rs. 10,73,000. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum as awarded by the Tribunal. In the facts of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .