ORDER 11.8.2006 — Though this case was listed for admission, on request of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for hearing and disposal. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 7.10.1999 passed by the Third M.A.C.T., Puri in MACT Misc. Case No. 2097/111 of 1992/1991 directing payment of compensation of Rs. 2,10,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the application till payment. 2. Claimants-respondents are the legal heirs of deceased Kishore Chandra Jena. Case of the claimants is that on 9.12.1990 at about 5 p.m. when the deceased was going to market for pur¬chasing vegetables in his cycle, the offending bus bearing regis¬tration No. ORP-5627 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against him from behind, as a result of which the deceased was thrown to a distance of ten feet and fell on the road and there¬after the offending bus ran over him causing the death. Further case of the claimants-respondents is that the deceased was 21 years of age and was earning Rs. 1500/- per month working as a Peon in M/s. Swain Associates, Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar and was contributing Rs. 1100/- per month to his family. Owner of the offending vehicle filed written statement denying direct knowl¬edge about the accident resulting in death of the deceased. However, he stated that the vehicle had been validly insured with the present appellant. The present appellant also filed a writ¬ten statement denying the allegations made in the claim petition as well as the income of the deceased. The Tribunal on analysis of evidence framed five issues and with reference to the evidence adduced it held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle resulting in death of the deceased. Accepting the income of the deceased at the time of accident as Rs. 1500/- per month, the Tribunal applying 17 multi¬plier allowed compensation of Rs. 2,10,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant challenges the award basically on two grounds. The first ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no record to show that the deceased was working as a Peon in M/s. Swain Associates and in absence of any documentary evidence the claim of the claimants that the deceased was working as a Peon could not have been accepted. The first ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no record to show that the deceased was working as a Peon in M/s. Swain Associates and in absence of any documentary evidence the claim of the claimants that the deceased was working as a Peon could not have been accepted. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accident took place in the year 1990 and during those days a Peon was not getting more than Rs. 1000/- per month in a private firm. Therefore, the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 1500/- per month is on the higher side. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased being a bachelor, age of the parents should have been taken into consideration for the purpose of multiplier. If the age of the parents is taken into consideration the multiplier should be 15 according to the learned counsel for the appellant. The second ground on which the award is challenged is the rate of interest granted by the Tribu¬nal. Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the deceased was working as Peon in a pri¬vate firm and was getting Rs. 1500/- per month. Claim of the claimants in this respect is supported by evidence adduced in course of the proceeding before the Tribunal. The Insurance company has not adduced any rebuttal evidence to disbelieve the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimant. So far as multiplier is concerned, learned counsel for the respond¬ents submitted that the deceased being a bachelor, age of the parents should have been considered for the purpose of applying correct multiplier. 4. On perusal of the evidence adduced before the trial Court, I find that the claimants’ witnesses are consistent in their statement that the deceased was working as Peon in a pri¬vate firm and was earning salary of Rs. 1500/- per month. There is nothing in the cross-examination to disbelieve these witness¬es. The appellant has also not adduced any rebuttal evidence to come to a different finding. I, therefore, agree with the Tribu¬nal that the deceased was getting Rs. 1500/- per month as salary. Deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure the contribution to the family is Rs. 1000/- per month. 1500/- per month. There is nothing in the cross-examination to disbelieve these witness¬es. The appellant has also not adduced any rebuttal evidence to come to a different finding. I, therefore, agree with the Tribu¬nal that the deceased was getting Rs. 1500/- per month as salary. Deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure the contribution to the family is Rs. 1000/- per month. Coming to the question of multiplier it is admitted that the father of the deceased was 48 years of age and mother of the deceased was 40 years of age at the time of death of the deceased. Taking average age of the parents at 44 years, the appropriate multiplier will be 15. Applying 15 multiplier, compensation comes to Rs. 1,80,000/-. So far as interest is concerned, in view of the recent decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court, rate of inter¬est at 12% per annum granted by the Tribunal is reduced to 7.5% per annum. 5. The appeal is partly allowed and it is directed that the claimants-respondents shall be entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application till payment. The order of the Tribunal stands modi¬fied to the above extent. It appears from the order sheet that the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- has been made. The said amount alongwith accrued interest be refunded to the appellant and the entire award amount with interest be deposited before the Tribunal within two months from today and the Tribunal shall disburse the same in terms of the earlier order. If any variance of the earlier order is re¬quired to be made, the Tribunal may do so. Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application. Appeal partly allowed.