Judgment 1. The judgment and award dated 28.7.2003 and 25.8.2003 passed in Motor Vehicle Claim Case No. 150/05 of 1999/ 2001 by Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal Judge, Sasaram is under challenge in this appeal. 2. The husband of the sole appellant, who was in Government service, died in an accident by Bus No. MP-B-27/1102 Basant Roadways owned by respondent no.1 and ensured by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited (respondents no. 2 and 3). The claim case was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the claimant-appellant and the Insurance Company and a total sum of Rs. 2,65,500.00 together with interest @ 7% per annum with effect from the date of application was awarded and the Insurance Company was directed to make payment of the entire amount after deduction of Rs. 50,000.00 already paid as interim compensation within two weeks from the date of the order. 3. The claimant-appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the parties were heard. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order would show that the deceased died at the age of 54 (55 years) and as such, in view of Schedule II (Schedule for compensation for third party fatal accidents/injury cases claims), the multiplier ought to have been fixed by 11 and not by 8 as has been done by the Tribunal. He further submitted that though the Schedule is meant for compensation under Sec.163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, ordinarily the provisions of that Schedule including multiplier may be taken as a guide in disposal of the application under Sec.166 of the M.V. Act. In support of his submissions he has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of United India insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan & Ors., reported in (2002)6 SCC 281 . 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company opposed the prayer and submitted that the multiplier at 8 was not just and proper and that the appellant has already received the total amount. So, she cannot now file this appeal. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 3. 7. On a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Tribunal has held that the age of the deceased at the time of death was in between 54-55 years. So, she cannot now file this appeal. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 3. 7. On a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Tribunal has held that the age of the deceased at the time of death was in between 54-55 years. The order further shows that the Tribunal had actually applied the provisions of Schedule II in calculating the compensation but by mistake instead of multiplier 11 has applied multiplier 8. Under the provisions of Schedule II for the deceased above 50 years of age but not exceeding 55 years, the multiplier provided is 11 and as held by the Supreme Court in the above case normally the multiplier indicated in the Schedule should be applied as it has been found a safe guide for the purpose of calculation of the amount of compensation. So, in my opinion, the Tribunal should have used the multiplier 11 instead of multiplier 8 and even if the multiplier 11 is used the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 3,52,000.00 in place of Rs. 2,56,000/-calculated by the Tribunal. 8. The claimant, therefore, is entitled to enhancement and compensation is enhanced to Rs. 96,000.00 with interest thereon at the rate fixed by the Tribunal. The case of the applicant is that she received the amount of award with objection. So, even if the total amount has been received by the claimant she is not deprived of getting this enhanced amount. It may be also mentioned that the appellant has also claimed enhanced interest @ 9% per annum instead of 7% allowed by the Tribunal; but nothing has been shown by the learned counsel to prove that the appellant was entitled to ennanced rate of interest, so the rate of interest cannot be enhanced. 9. in the result, this appeal is allowed to the extent that the amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs. 96,000/-with interest @ 7%. 10. The Insurance Company (respondents no.1 to 3) is directed to pay the amount and for that it would deposit the amount in the Tribunal within three months from the date of its receipt.