Judgment : M. Y. EQBAL, AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties in the limitation matter. ( 2 ) HAVING regard to the causes shown in the limitation petition, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. ( 3 ) LA. No. 2116 of 2003 is thus disposed of. M. A. No. 283 of 2003: ( 4 ) WE have also heard the parties in the main petition. ( 5 ) THIS instant appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 24. 2. 2003 passed by the Second Additional District judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, dhanbad in Title (M. V.) Suit No. 3 of 1999, whereby a sum of Rs. 6,96,915 has been awarded by way of compensation together with interest to the claimants on account of death of the deceased. ( 6 ) SUBSEQUENT to the award, Tribunal entertained an application under sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code and modified the award by reducing the amount from Rs. 6,96,915 to Rs. 4,68,312. ( 7 ) DECEASED was an Engineer posted as district Engineer, Zila Parishad, Dumka. He was aged about 581/2 years on the fateful day when he succumbed to the injury in the motor vehicle accident. The claimants, who are the widow, son and daughter, filed the aforementioned claim case for the grant of compensation. It appears that the deceased was getting salary of Rs. 13,634 at the time of death. ( 8 ) THE Tribunal although applied the principle of multiplier theory for the purpose of assessing the compensation but he has divided the period in two parts, i. e. , for the remaining period of one and half years of service the Tribunal applied 6/2 years multiplier and assessed the compensation and for the period after superannuation a different yardstick has been applied and after calculating compensation the Tribunal assessed it at Rs. 6,96,915. ( 9 ) BY the order referred to herein above, the Claims Tribunal modified the award and reduced the amount on the ground that due to inadvertence and mistake, 1/3rd of the total income was not deducted before assessing the compensation. ( 10 ) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company. ( 11 ) ADMITTEDLY, the deceased was getting the salary of Rs. 13,634. ( 10 ) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company. ( 11 ) ADMITTEDLY, the deceased was getting the salary of Rs. 13,634. For the purpose of assessing the compensation that last pay drawn by the deceased has to be taken into consideration while applying multiplier theory. The procedure adopted by the Claims Tribunal in calculating the compensation on the basis of the multiplier theory for one and half years only, i. e. , during the remaining period of service and then different procedure for the period after superannuation, in our view, is not in accordance with law. Taking into consideration last pay drawn by the deceased, we find that a minimum sum of Rs. 1,00,000 should be the annual dependency after deducting 1/3rd out of the total salary of rs. 13,000. Even if, we take six years of purchase under the multiplier theory the total amount comes to Rs. 6,00,000 and odd. In our view, therefore, the initial amount of compensation assessed by the tribunal, i. e. , Rs. 6,96,915 is quite just and reasonable. ( 12 ) IN order to avoid unnecessary delay, we affirm the judgment by which Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 6,96,915 and set aside the subsequent order dated 27. 7. 2005 passed by Tribunal modifying the award in exercise of powers conferred under section 151 read with section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby the compensation amount was reduced from rs. 6,96,915 to Rs. 4,68,312. The instant appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .