Judgment KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the appeal. ( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that the deceased bhanwari Singh who died in the motor vehicle accident which had taken place on 14. 5. 1992, was in permanent employment of Rajasthan Finance Corporation and holding the post of class IV. ( 3 ) UNDISPUTEDLY his age was 36 years and the learned Tribunal also took this age. ( 4 ) ORDINARILY, for the purpose of award of compensation for death of person of this age group, the courts/tribunals adopt the multiplier of 16. In this view of the matter, multiplier of 14 adopted by learned Tribunal is certainly towards the lower side. ( 5 ) EXH. P1 is the salary certificate of the deceased, as per it his monthly salary was Rs. 1,527, the learned Tribunal, taking into consideration the future prospects of increase of his income, has added 50 per cent of the monthly salary and thus his monthly income was taken at Rs. 2,290. One-third thereof has been deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,718 has been taken as the loss of economic dependency of the family. To that extent the learned tribunal has not committed any error. But curiously enough learned Tribunal looking to the fact that the claimant-appellant No. 1, the widow of the deceased, at the relevant time was getting Rs. 1,500 as family pension, has slashed down this amount to rs. 218. ( 6 ) I find sufficient merit in the contention of counsel for the claimant-appellant that the amount of family pension, which the widow of the deceased would have been receiving, cannot be deducted from the amount of loss of economic dependency calculated by the learned Tribunal. Deceased was in permanent employment and I find sufficient justification in the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant-appellant that the income of the deceased ought to have been taken double of his salary. My view is fortified by the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State road Trans. Corpn. Deceased was in permanent employment and I find sufficient justification in the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant-appellant that the income of the deceased ought to have been taken double of his salary. My view is fortified by the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State road Trans. Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), in that case their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court took the future income of deceased employee in permanent service for determination of compensation as double of his income on the date of the accident. ( 7 ) TAKING into consideration all the facts and circumstances, the compensation under the head of loss of economic dependency of the family comes to Rs. 6,59,712 (Rs. 1,718 x 2 x 12 x 16 ). The learned tribunal under this head has awarded a sum of Rs. 36,624. Thus under the head of loss of economic dependency to the family of the deceased the enhanced compensation comes to Rs. 6,23,088. On this enhanced amount of compensation the claimant-appellant shall also be entitled for interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of filing of the claim petition till 31. 12. 2000 and at the rate of 9 per cent from 1. 1. 2001 till its realization. ( 8 ) THE non-claimant respondent United india Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to deposit the amount of enhanced compensation together with interest thereon, as indicated above, in this court within one month by account payee cheque/dd/pay order, drawn in the name of the Registrar (Administration) of this court. ( 9 ) ON deposit of the amount aforesaid, the court shall pass the order of its investment/disbursement. Appeal allowed.