Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988, challenging an award dated 16. 7. 2002 passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case no. 1 of 2001. ( 2. ) CLAIMANTS-RESPONDENT Nos. 5 to 8 are the dependants of deceased Gulab Singh bhadoriya who was working as an accountant in the Regional Transport Office, morena. It is stated that he was 45 years of age at the time of accident and was getting monthly salary of Rs. 7,968. He died in a road accident that took place on 3. 7. 2000 when he was travelling in a Maruti van bearing No. MP 07-N 2241 when it dashed with a truck No. MP 08-1729, claiming compensation of Rs. 16,00,000. The claim petition under section 166 was filed on the basis of the evidence and material that came on record, age of deceased was as-sessed at 52 years, 4 months and 26 days and after assessing his monthly salary at rs. 7,968, looking to the fact of future promotion, increment and increase of the salary because of pay revision, monthly income is assessed at Rs. 9,000 and multiplier of 11 is applied and a compensation of Rs. 7,92,000 awarded. After deducting 1/3rd towards self expenses, to this further a sum of Rs. 10,000 is added towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss to estate to the children and a total compensation of Rs. 8,02,000, is awarded along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum and penal clause is incorporated in the award to the effect that if the amount is not paid within one month, amount of interest shall be at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. ( 3. ) ASSAILING the aforesaid assessment made by the Tribunal in this appeal, Mr. S. Gajendragadkar, counsel for appellant insurance company submits that according to the age of deceased he would have retired after completing 7-8 years of service and after retirement the amount of salary received would have been reduced by 50 per cent, i. e. , the pension to be received that being so in applying the multiplier of 11 for the whole period it is said that the learned Tribunal has committed error. Mr. Gajendragadkar further submits that in assessing the salary of deceased at Rs. Mr. Gajendragadkar further submits that in assessing the salary of deceased at Rs. 9,000 without any basis, learned Tribunal has committed error which requires rectification in this appeal. It is also argued by him that in the present case the penal interest has been awarded without any justification and the same is liable to be interfered with. In support of the contention with regard to assessment of compensation, applicability of multiplier and the reduction in the salary to be granted when the deceased is a government employee and who has to retire mr. Gajendragadkar, invites our attention to a Division Bench judgment of Karnataka high Court in the case of Union of India v. K. S. Lakshmi Kumar, 2001 ACJ 134 (Karnataka) and the principles laid down by a Division Bench of this court in Madhu-kanta Vyas v. Antram Batham, M. A No. 431 of 2001; decided on 2. 2. 2006. Accordingly, Mr. Gajendragadkar, prays for interference in the matter and rejection of the amount of compensation. ( 4. ) REFUTING the aforesaid Mr. Verma, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 7 submits that application of multiplier is proper and the same does not warrant any interference in the matter, he prays for dismissal of this appeal placing reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti Kaul v. State of Madhya pradesh, 2000 ACJ 1368 (SC), in support of his contention. ( 5. ) WE have heard counsel for parties at length and perused the records. ( 6. ) AS far as the determination of the age of the deceased at 52 years is concerned the same is based on the age recorded in the PAN card maintained in the Income tax Department, the said finding is proper. The salary of the deceased is already assessed at Rs. 7,968 on the basis of salary certificate issued by the department. However, to this increments are added and looking to the future prospect, salary is assessed at Rs. 9,000 per month. Even though insurance company had challenged this assessment it is a known fact that an accountant in transport department under normal circumstances would be getting increment of Rs. 200 at least per annum. Considering these factors if the deceased had 8 years of service left then assessment of his salary at Rs. 9,000 per month on the basis of his salary being approximately rs. 200 at least per annum. Considering these factors if the deceased had 8 years of service left then assessment of his salary at Rs. 9,000 per month on the basis of his salary being approximately rs. 8,000, the learned Tribunal has not committed error so grave in nature the interference has to be made in this appeal. The Tribunal having adopted a reasonable approach in the matter of assessing the salary at Rs. 9,000 we see no reason for interference in the same. ( 7. ) AS far as applying the multiplier for the entire period of 11 years and non consideration of the fact that the deceased would have retired after 8 years and would be earning pension that would be 50 per cent is concerned, there is much force in the contention raised by Mr. Gajendragadkar, counsel for insurance company, this question is considered by Karnataka high Court in the case of K. S. Laxmi kumar, 2001 ACJ 134 (Karnataka) and the principles for applying the multiplier in a case where the number of years of service of the deceased are less than the multiplier is considered and it has been held by Karnataka High Court that the full salary should be taken into consideration and the multiplier applied only till the age of superannuation and for the remaining period the multiplier should be adopted on 50 per cent of the salary which is the amount of pension which the deceased would have earned. This principle laid down by Karnataka High Court is followed by a Division Bench of this court in the case of Madhukanta Vyas (supra) and after considering the observation made by karnataka High Court the same was approved by a Division Bench of this court and while doing so certain other judgments are considered. Even the judgment of Jyoti Kaul, 2000 ACJ 1368 (SC) relied upon by Mr. B. D. Verma, counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 7 is considered and the Division Bench has approved calculation of compensation by granting full wages for the period when the deceased would have been in service and, thereafter, by reducing it by 50 per cent for the remaining period. As a division Bench of this court has followed this principle we are of the considered view that in the present case also the same should be followed. ( 8. As a division Bench of this court has followed this principle we are of the considered view that in the present case also the same should be followed. ( 8. ) AS far as grant of penal interest is concerned, we are of the considered view that when the interest at the rate of 9 per cent is being granted there is no necessity to impose any penal condition. As far as grant of benefit on other heads like loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss to estate to the children are concerned, the sum of Rs. 10,000 awarded is very much on the lower side. On various other heads this court has been consistently granting a sum of Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 40,000. In the present case looking to the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that a sum of Rs. 40,000 should be granted on all other heads. Accordingly, the amount of compensation would be calculated now with the following terms: salary at the rate of Rs. 9,000 per month for the period of 8 years and after deducting 1/3rd for self expenses dependency would come to Rs. 6,000 x 12 x 8 = rs. 5,76,000 thereafter, this amount has to be reduced by 50 per cent for remaining period of 3 years, i. e. , Rs. 3,000 x 12 x 3 = Rs. 1,08,000. To this further a sum of Rs. 40,000 is to be added, accordingly, the total compensation would come to Rs. 7,24,000. ( 9. ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is allowed in part the amount of compensation is reduced from Rs. 8,02,000 to Rs. 7,24,000. The distribution of compensation shall be done in the same proposition as done by the Tribunal. As far as grant of interest is concerned entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim application till payment. ( 10. ) ACCORDINGLY, appeal stands allowed in part and disposed of with the aforesaid. Appeal partly allowed.