Judgment R.S. Chauhan, J.-On 011.1991 the claimant had lost her husband in a truck accident. She had, therefore, filed a claim for Rs. 13,80,000/-in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (henceforth to be referred as The Tribunal”). Neither the owner nor the Driver of the said truck had appeared before the Tribunal. The case was contested only by the non-applicant No. 3, the National Insurance Co. Ltd. In its written statement, the Company admitted that the truck was insured with the Company. But, it claimed that the accident was due to negligence of both the deceased and of the truck driver. Vide award dated 21.01.1995, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,53,000/-in favour of the claimants. Even then, as the claimant is aggrieved by the said award, she has filed the present appeal before us for enhancement of the compensation. 2. Mr. K.N. Tewari, learned Counsel for the claimants, has argued that a wrong multiplier has been applied in the present case. The Tribunal has applied only a multiplier of 11, whereas since the deceased was 40 years and 6 months of age on the date of alleged accident, therefore, a multiplier of 15 should have been applied by the learned Tribunal. Secondly, he has contended that the Tribunal has erred in reducing the amount that the claimant would received by way of family pension from the compensation amount. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, has supported the impugned award. 4. Admittedly, the accident had occurred on 011.1991 by which time the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was not introduced. The said Schedule was introduced in the year 1994, therefore, it cannot be given retrospective effect. However, considering the fact that the deceased was only 40 years and 6 months old, considering the fact that an average life expectancy was taken at the relevant time to be between 65 and 70 years, then the multiplier of 11 is woefully low. According to Their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court, the structured formula laid-down in the II Schedule can be adopted as a safe guidance while computing the compensation in a claim which had arisen out of an accident much prior to the incorporation of Section 163-A in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (Ref . to Khushnuma Begum & Ors. vs. New India Assurance Co. (Ref . to Khushnuma Begum & Ors. vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2001 ACJ 428). Therefore, while passing the award in the year 1995, the Tribunal should have treated the II schedule as merely laying down the guideline and should have applied multiplier of 15 instead of multiplier of 11. Hence, the learned Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 11. 5. The learned Tribunal has also faltered when it directed the amount to be paid to the claimant by way of family pension to be deducted from the compensation amount. Such a course is not available to the learned Tribunal. In the case of Sukhi & Ors. vs. Hem Singh & Ors., 1994 ACJ 1024 (Rajasthan), this Court has clearly stated as under: - “The pension comes as a result of his service career and it is an incidence of service payable to the employee on superannuation and is deeply rooted in the performance of the satisfactory service rendered by the employee and cannot be attributed to the fortuitous circumstances of the accident and the result of the death. The tortfeasor cannot be allowed to take the benefit of the pension received by the claimant by getting the credit for them in mitigation of the damages that he must pay. There is a difference between the benefits received on account of the death and those which are payable on the death of a person. The grant of pension on attaining the age of superannuation is a benefit which is available independent of the death but is payable on the death or on the date of superannuation. The pensionary benefit which one inherits on account of qualifying service or the death cannot be denied to a person entitled to such benefits on the pretext that he has received such other benefits. It is not the pecuniary gain as such but is an acceleration of pecuniary gain. It may be the value of the acceleration that can be taken into account while deterring the amount of compensation and not the value of the benefit itself and some deduction, if possible, can be made for the payments received earlier. But the other aspect of the case also cannot be ignored and the amount of family pension cannot be slashed from the amount of compensation because the deceased has put in the qualifying service for the grant of pension”. But the other aspect of the case also cannot be ignored and the amount of family pension cannot be slashed from the amount of compensation because the deceased has put in the qualifying service for the grant of pension”. 6. Thus, the direction of the Tribunal on this point is also mis-placed. 7. While passing the award the learned Tribunal has directed that the compensation of Rs. 1,78,000/-should be paid alongwith interest @ 12% per-annum. However, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has contended that the present rate of interest is only 6% per-annum. Therefore, according to him it would be highly unjust to continue the 12% interest as directed by the Tribunal. Considering the fact that the present appeal has been hanging fire for the last decade, we deem it just and proper that the rate of interest should be reduced from 12% per-annum to 9% per-annum. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The award dated 210.1995 is modified to the extent that the annual income of Rs. 15,600/-is multiplied by 15 which is equal to Rs. 2,34,000/-(Rs. two lac thirty four thousand only) plus as directed by the learned Tribunal the claimant should be granted Rs. 5,000/-for the loss of cohabitation plus Rs. 2,000/-for performance of last rites plus Rs. 2,500/-for the damage to the property, all of which comes to a grant total of Rs. 2,43,500/-. The said amount shall be paid to the claimant alongwith interest @ 9% per-annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization.