JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—In this appeal preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the judgment and award dated 25.8.1998, passed by M.A.C.T./13th Additional District Judge Allahabad, in M.A.C.P. No. 311 of 1997 (Kavita Devi v. P.A.C. Commandant 4th Bn. Dhoomanganj, Allahabad) has been challenged. By the impugned award, the Tribunal below has granted a sum of Rs. 2,83,000/- as compensation for the death of Mohan Lal @ Himmat Singh (husband of the claimant). 2. The claimant/respondent has also filed cross appeal/objections on 12.11.2003 for enhancement of the compensation. 3. Mohan Lal @ Himmat Singh (hereinafter to be referred as ‘deceased’) died due to the injuries sustained by him in accident on 28.05.1997 at about 9.00 p.m. The said accident is alleged to have been caused by PAC Truck No. U.P. 70E/8655 (for short the offending vehicle). The claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act (For short the Act) claiming a sum of Rs. 4,75,000/- as compensation. It is alleged that when the deceased had gone to purchase house hold goods from the shop situated near Ice Factory at Kanhaipur turning on 28.5.1997 at about 9.00 p.m., he was hit by offending vehicle, which was being backed by its driver in rash and negligent manner. The deceased sustained serious injuries in the accident. He was carried to Gupta Nursing Home, from where he was referred to Medical College Allahabad, where he succumbed to the injuries. First information report regarding this incident was lodged by Bal Krishan (P.W. 2). 4. The appellant/opposite-party filed written statement denying the allegations made in the petition, but he admitted involvement of the offending vehicle in the alleged accident. It is averred that the offending vehicle was taken out from garage by the constable Mohd. Saleem, who was not authorised to carry the vehicle, but without seeking permission from the competent authority, he carried the vehicle at the place of accident and when the vehicle was being backed, the deceased all of a sudden came behind the vehicle, due to which he sustained injuries, hence the claimant is not entitled for any compensation, as deceased himself was responsible for the alleged accident. 5. In order to prove her case, the claimant Smt. Kavita examined herself as P.W.1 and eye-witness of the accident Bal Krishan as P.W. 2. Suhel Ahmad (P.W.3) has been examined to prove the profession of deceased. 5. In order to prove her case, the claimant Smt. Kavita examined herself as P.W.1 and eye-witness of the accident Bal Krishan as P.W. 2. Suhel Ahmad (P.W.3) has been examined to prove the profession of deceased. The appellant-opposite party did not examine any witness. The Tribunal below after taking entire evidence into consideration and hearing parties Counsel, partly allowed the claim petition for compensation as mentioned in para 1 above. Hence this appeal and cross appeal/objections. 6. We have heard Sri S.K. Malhotra learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Ram Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the record carefully. 7. In the finding of issue No. 1, the Tribunal below has held that the alleged accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Involvement of this vehicle in the alleged accident is admitted by the appellant-opposite party in his written statement. Bal Krishan (P.W. 2), is the eye witness of the alleged Accident. He has stated that the offending vehicle hit the deceased, when it was being backed negligently in fast speed by its driver without giving any indication. We have carefully gone through the statement of this witness. There is no reason to disbelieve his testimony. Hence the finding of the Tribunal below on issue No. 1 is affirmed, as the said finding does not suffer from any error of law of fact. On the basis of the principle of Master and Servant, the appellant opposite party is liable to pay compensation for the death of deceased. 8. The Tribunal below has granted compensation taking Rs. 2000/- as monthly income of deceased. From the evidence of P.W. 1 Kavita Devi and P.W. 3 Suhel Ahmad, it is proved that the deceased was runing Kirana shop. Although these witnesses have also stated that the deceased was also the agent of Sahara Company, but no cogent and reliable evidence to establish this fact has been led by the claimant. The Tribunal below also has not believed this part of the statement of these witnesses for want of any reliable evidence. We too are not inclined to believe that the deceased was working as agent of Sahara company. Although Smt. Kavita has stated in her statement that her husband was earning about Rs. The Tribunal below also has not believed this part of the statement of these witnesses for want of any reliable evidence. We too are not inclined to believe that the deceased was working as agent of Sahara company. Although Smt. Kavita has stated in her statement that her husband was earning about Rs. 100/- per day from Kirana shop, but giving some margin to the exaggeration, the Tribunal did not commit any illegality in taking Rs. 2000/- as monthly income of deceased. 9. The Tribunal has deducted 1/4th amount only for personal expenses of the deceased and Rs. 1500/- per month have been taken as contribution to his family members. Besides the wife of deceased, his family consisted of his mother and five children. Hence, keeping in view the family members of the deceased, deduction of 1/4th amount only for his personal expenses cannot be said to be unjustified. 10. It was submitted by Sri Malhotra, learned Counsel for the appellant that Second Schedule of the Act had come into existence in the year 1994 and hence 1/3rd amount ought to have been deducted for personal expenses of the deceased and since the learned Tribunal below has deducted 1/4th amount only for personal expenses of the deceased, the impugned award is not in accordance with law. We find ourselves unable to subscribe to this submission of Sri Malhotra. It is true that after coming into force of second schedule to Section 163A of the Act, which was inserted by Act No. 54 of 1994, generally 1/3rd amount is deducted for personal expenses of the deceased in fatal accident cases, but in our view, deduction of 1/3rd amount for personal expenses of the deceased is not hard and fast rule in claim petitions under section 166 of the Act. In appropriate cases, the Tribunal can deduct lesser amount for personal expenses of deceased. If any person is required to maintain large family members, then he cannot afford to incur 1/3rd amount towards maintaining himself and he would save more money to maintain his family members. In instant case, the deceased had five children and old mother besides his wife. It has come in the statement of the claimant Smt. Kavita that except her daughter Km. Juhi, other children were minors and school going. In instant case, the deceased had five children and old mother besides his wife. It has come in the statement of the claimant Smt. Kavita that except her daughter Km. Juhi, other children were minors and school going. Therefore, having regard to the number of family members of the deceased, deduction of 1/4th amount from monthly income of the deceased for his personal expenses is neither illegal nor unjustified and hence interference in the impugned award on this ground is not warranted. 11. It was further submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that interest granted by the Tribunal below is on higher side and it should be reduced. We find no force in this submission also. The impugned award was granted in the year 1998. In those days interest rates in banks were high and generally Tribunals and Higher Courts were granting interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. Hence in instant case also, the claimant is entitled to get interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the petition and no interference is required in the impugned award on this ground also. 12. The claimant/respondent has filed cross appeal/ objections for enhancement of compensation. In this regard, it was submitted by Sri Ram Singh, learned Counsel for the claimant, that multiplier of 16 ought to have been applied by the Tribunal for granting compensation, as the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 38 years as per post mortem report. On this point our attention was drawn by Sri Ram Singh towards the second schedule of the Act. In the post mortem report, the age of the deceased has been shown as 38 years. The learned Tribunal has taken the age of deceased 40 years and multiplier of 15 has been applied for granting compensation. The claimant Smt. Kavita has told her age 38 years in her statement recorded in the Court below as P.W. 1. Although having regard to the age of deceased and claimant and Second Schedule of the Act, multiplier of 16 ought to have been applied tor granting compensation in instant case, but keeping in view the fact that 1/4th deduction only has been made for personal expenses of the deceased, interference by this Court in multiplier will not be justified. 13. Although having regard to the age of deceased and claimant and Second Schedule of the Act, multiplier of 16 ought to have been applied tor granting compensation in instant case, but keeping in view the fact that 1/4th deduction only has been made for personal expenses of the deceased, interference by this Court in multiplier will not be justified. 13. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel for the claimant-respondent that monthly income of the deceased was more than Rs. 3000/- per month as he was earning rupees 10-12 thousands per year from Sahara Company as its agent. We have already held that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in granting compensation on the basis of the income of the deceased from Kirana shop only ignoring the income of the deceased as agent of Sahara Company, because no cogent and reliable evidence has been led by the claimant to prove that her husband was agent of Sahara Company. Therefore, there is no scope for making interference by this Court in the impugned award for enhancing compensation on the ground of monthly income of the deceased and multiplier. 14. No other point worth mentioning was urged before us by the parties Counsel. 15. For the reasons mentioned here-in-above, interference by this Court in the impugned award is not required, as the said award does not suffer from any illegality. 16. Consequently, the appeal as well as cross-appeal/objections are hereby dismissed. 17. The appellant is directed to deposit the balance amount of award with interest within a period of two months before the Tribunal below. ————