Judgment Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The impugned Award dated 16-12-2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / District Judge, Nainital in MACP. No. 40 of 2004 gave rise to the filing of these two appeals (A.O. No. 109 of 2005 and A.O. No. 238 of 2006). A.O. No. 109 of 2005 is at the behest of National Insurance Company Ltd., the insurer of the offending vehicle Armada, whereas the other appeal A.O. No. 238 of 2006 is by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation. 2. The claimants, who are unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Mohammad Ahmed, claimed compensation of Rs. 29,95,0001- for his death in the motor accident, when in the evening of 03-09-2003 his motorcycle was dashed by the offending vehicle Armada Jeep bearing registration No. U.P.-4C-1102 resulting in serious injuries to Mohammad Ahmed, who succumbed to those injuries on his way to Hospital. On the report of Shafeeq Ahmed, a criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle Armada. The claimants further pleaded that deceased Mohammad Ahmed used to earn Rs. 8,0001- per month. 3. The owner and insurer of the offending vehicle Armada contested the claim. The owner denied his liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the plea that his vehicle was not involved in the accident. The insurer also denied its liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the plea that the vehicle was being plied in breach of the policy conditions and the person driving the vehicle at the time of the accident was not holding a valid driving license. 4. The claimants examined PW 1 Smt. Mobeen Begum, PW2 Shafeeq Ahmed and PW3 Syeed Ahmed in support of their claim, whereas the owner examined himself as DW1. The insurer of the offending vehicle, however, did not examine any witness. 5. The Tribunal, on the evidence led by the parties, held that Mohammad Ahmed sustained injuries in the accident on 03-09-2003 and succumbed to those injuries; the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Armada; and the insurer of the offending vehicle Armada was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 6. On the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased,. the Tribunal assessed his income at Rs. 5,000/- per month and Rs. 60,000/- per annum. 6. On the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased,. the Tribunal assessed his income at Rs. 5,000/- per month and Rs. 60,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of the said amount as the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs. 40,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 40,000/with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 6,00,000/-. The Tribunal, thus, awarded total compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the claimants for the death of Mohammad Ahmed in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed the insurer of the offending vehicle Armada to pay the compensation to the claimants within a period of two months and, in the event of failure, to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application. 7. Mr. Lalit Belwal, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company challenged the Award on the grounds that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the driver of the offending vehicle Annada, alone, was responsible for the accident, whereas it was a case of contributory negligence where the motorcyclist and the driver of the offending vehicle Armada both were equally responsible for the accident; the person driving the offending vehicle Armada at the time of the accident, was not holding a valid driving license; the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,0001- per month and Rs. 60,0001- per annum, as he was working at a brick kiln and as such, he may not be getting salary for whole of the year; and the multiplier of '15' selected by the Tribunal is on the higher side in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of T.N. State Transport Corpn. Ltd. Vs. S. Rajapriya and others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 236. 8. Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, the learned counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, sought enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the grounds that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,0001• per month only, whereas the deceased, in fact, was earning Rs. 8,0001- per month and the Tribunal did not award any interest on the amount of compensation to the claimants. 9. 5,0001• per month only, whereas the deceased, in fact, was earning Rs. 8,0001- per month and the Tribunal did not award any interest on the amount of compensation to the claimants. 9. The Tribunal has recorded the finding that deceased Mohammad Ahmed sustained injuries in the motor accident and succumbed to those injuries on the evidence of eye-witness PW 2 Shafeeq Ahmed, who has also lodged the First Information Report about the accident. On a perusal of the evidence of PW 2 Shafeeq Ahmed, we are satisfied about the correctness of the said finding and we, therefore, affirm the same. ' 10. As regards contributory negligence, though the Insurance Company took the plea of contributory negligence in para 7 of its written statement, it appears that at the stage of framing of the issues and thereafter during cross-examination, the said plea was given up. During the cross-examination of the eye-witness of the accident (PW2 Shafeeq Ahmed) not even a suggestion was made on behalf of the Insurance Company that the motorcyclist also contributed to the accident. The learned counsel for the insurer could not point out any material from the record to substantiate his plea about contributory negligence. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault with the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding the driver of the offending vehicle Armada, alone, responsible for the accident. 11 . The other ground raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the person driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident was not holding a valid driving license, deserves an outright rejection, as there is not even an iota of evidence to establish that the person, driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time, was not holding a valid driving license. 12. Next is the challenge made by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company as well as the claimants to the assessment of income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/- per month and Rs. 60,000/- per annum. 13. The challenge on behalf of the Insurance Company is on the ground that the deceased may not be getting work at the brick kiln for whole of the year. 60,000/- per annum. 13. The challenge on behalf of the Insurance Company is on the ground that the deceased may not be getting work at the brick kiln for whole of the year. For the reasons best known to the Insurance Company, no such suggestion was made to PW3 Syeed Ahmed, employer of the deceased, in his cross-examination that the deceased was not getting salary from the brick kiln for whole of the year. From the evidence of PW3 Syeed Ahmed, it is established that the deceased was working at the brick kiln in the capacity of a Manager and not a labourer. As such, we do not find any substance in the stand taken by the Insurance Company that the deceased may not be getting salary for whole of the year. 14. Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, the learned counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, submitted that the deceased was getting Rs. 3,000/- per month by plying a three wheeler Tempo in addition to Rs. 5,000/- per month, which he was getting as salary from the brick kiln. Though it is so pleaded by the claimants in the claim petition, in her evidence as PW1 Smt. Mobeen Begum deposed only about the salary of Rs. 5,000/- per month, which the deceased was getting as Manager at the brick kiln. In her cross-examination, she has clarified that before joining the job as Manager at the brick kiln, her husband used to ply a three wheeler Tempo, meaning thereby that after joining the service at brick kiln as Manager, he discontinued to ply the Tempo. There is no other evidence on record to establish that deceased Mohammad Ahmed had any other income, much less the income from plying the Tempo, in addition to the salary of Rs. 5,000/-, which he was getting as Manager at the brick kiln. 15. Thus, the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month and Rs. 60,000/- per annum does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. 16. The multiplier of '15' selected by the Tribunal, considering the age of the deceased and the age of the claimants, is certainly on the higher side in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of T.N. State Transport Corpn. Ltd. Vs. S. Rajapriya and others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 236. 17. 16. The multiplier of '15' selected by the Tribunal, considering the age of the deceased and the age of the claimants, is certainly on the higher side in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of T.N. State Transport Corpn. Ltd. Vs. S. Rajapriya and others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 236. 17. The Apex Court, while considering as to what would be the appropriate multiplier in the case of S. Rajapriya (supra) where the age of the deceased was 38 years, observed in paras 12 & 17: "12. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalising the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 17. Considering the age of the deceased and the principles indicated above, the appropriate multiplier would be 12 and not 16 as adopted by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court. By applying multiplier 12, amount of compensation is fixed at Rs. 4,50,000 (in round figures).............. 18. Reverting to the present case, deceased Mohammad Ahmed, on the date of the accident, was aged about 45 years. Considering all the relevant factors and in view of the above-quoted dictum of the Apex Court, in our opinion, the multiplier of '11' would be appropriate in the case. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 40,000/- with the multiplier of 11, the compensation works out to Rs. 4,40,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to Rs. 2,000/towards Funeral Expenses, Rs. 2,500/- for Loss of Estate and Rs. 5,000/- for Loss of Consortium to the widow. Thus, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 4,49,500/- as compensation for the death of deceased Mohammad Ahmed in the motor accident. 19. 4,40,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to Rs. 2,000/towards Funeral Expenses, Rs. 2,500/- for Loss of Estate and Rs. 5,000/- for Loss of Consortium to the widow. Thus, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 4,49,500/- as compensation for the death of deceased Mohammad Ahmed in the motor accident. 19. The Tribunal, apparently, has fallen into error in not awarding any interest on the amount of compensation and only directing a conditional payment of interest in the event of failure of the Insurance Company to make payment within a period of two months from the date of the Award. Considering the prevalent rate of interest on fixed deposit in the nationalized bank, we award interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 20. From the records, we gather that the Insurance Company deposited a sum of Rs. 6,11,768/- on 04-04-2005 in compliance of the order dated 02-03-2005 passed inA.O. No.109 of 2005. In addition, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was deposited by the Insurance Company as mandatory deposit under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act while filing the appeal against the Award. Thus, the Insurance Company has deposited a total sum of Rs. 6,36,768/-. Out of this amount of Rs. 6,36,768/-, the claimants have already received a sum of Rs. 3,18,384/- in compliance of the orders dated 06-07-2005 and 01-08-2005. The balance amount of Rs. 3,18,384/was invested in Fixed Deposit. 21. We, therefore, deem it proper to quantify the amount of interest at Rs. 40,500/on the amount of Rs. 4,49,500/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application (01-03-2004) to the date of deposit of the amount of compensation by the Insurance Company in compliance of the interim order passed by this Court in its appeal i.e. 01-04-2005 and thereafter from 01-08-2005 on the balance amount of Rs. 1,31,116/- (4,49,500 - 3,18,384). 22. Thus, the claimants are entitled to receive a total sum of Rs. 4,90,000/- (4,49,500 + 40,500 = 4,90,000) as compensation and interest from the Insurance Company. As the claimants have already received Rs. 3,18,384/-, in compliance of the orders dated 06-07-2005 and 01-08-2005, they are now entitled to receive the balance amount of Rs. 1,71,616/- (4,90,000 - 3,18,384 = 1,71,616) towards the compensation and interest. . 23. 4,90,000/- (4,49,500 + 40,500 = 4,90,000) as compensation and interest from the Insurance Company. As the claimants have already received Rs. 3,18,384/-, in compliance of the orders dated 06-07-2005 and 01-08-2005, they are now entitled to receive the balance amount of Rs. 1,71,616/- (4,90,000 - 3,18,384 = 1,71,616) towards the compensation and interest. . 23. As claimant No.6 Tasleem Ahmed was 13 years of age on the date of the filing of the claim petition and still continues to be minor, it is directed that out of the above amount of Rs. 1,71,616/-, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be deposited in a Fixed Deposit with a Nationalised Bank for a period of three years and on the expiry of the maturity period of the Fixed Deposit, the amount of the Fixed Deposit, along with the interest due, shall be paid to claimant NO.6 Tasleem Ahmed. 24. The balance amount of Rs. 71,616/- shall be paid to claimant NO.1 Smt. Mobeen Begum, who is widow of deceased Mohammad Ahmed and mother of all other claimants. 25. The remaining amount (Rs. 3,18,384 + Interest on Fixed Deposit - Rs. 1,71,616) shall be released in favour of appellant National Insurance Company Ltd. 26. The impugned Award dated 16-12-2004 is modified to the extent indicated herein above. 27. With the above modification in the impugned Award, both the appeals (A.O. No. 109 of 2005 and A.O. No. 238 of 2006) stand disposed of. 28. No order as to costs. * * *