Judgment :- (1) This appeal is at the instance of the Insurance Company and is directed against an award dated 25th June, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 4th Court, Alipore in MAC Case No. 73 of 2007 thereby disposing of a proceeding under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act by directing the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation. (2) There is no dispute about the involvement of the victim in the accident resulting in the death and the fact that the involved vehicle was covered by the New India Assurance Company Limited. (3) The grievance of Mr. Das, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company, in this appeal is that the learned Tribunal below in fixing the amount did not take into consideration the age of the victim and at the same time, erred in law in treating her income as Rs. 3,000/-a month notwithstanding the fact that it was established from evidence that her husband was earning a sum of Rs. 2,200/-a month by doing a job. (4) After hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in case of Lata Wadhwa and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in AIR 2001 SC 3218 relied upon by the learned Tribunal below. In our opinion, there is little scope of argument that the income of a housewife between the age ground of 34 and 59 should be treated as Rs. 3,0007- a month, having regard to the service they render to the family. (5) In our view, the learned Tribunal below has rightly assessed the said amount in the facts of the present case. (6) Mr. Das next contends that in the facts of the present case, the appropriate multiplier should not be more than 16 and the age of the victim should not be treated to be 34 at the time of accident as her husband admitted that the daughter of the victim was aged 22 years. (7) It appears from record that the learned Tribunal below came to the conclusion that the victim was aged 34 by relying upon the voters identity card, which indicated that she was aged 22 years on 1st January, 1995. (7) It appears from record that the learned Tribunal below came to the conclusion that the victim was aged 34 by relying upon the voters identity card, which indicated that she was aged 22 years on 1st January, 1995. (8) However, after taking into consideration the admission of the husband of the victim that the daughter was aged 22 years at the time of deposition, we are of the opinion that the victim was between 35 and 40 at the time of accident and accordingly, we propose to apply the multiplier of 16, as mentioned in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. (9) Therefore, on the basis of the monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- a month and by applying the multiplier of 16, the total amount comes to Rs. 3,93,500/- in accordance with the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. (10) Although Mr. Das tried to convince us that if a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- is invested in the Bank, the monthly income from the said amount will be around Rs. 3,000/-and as such, we should reduce the amount. We are not at all impressed upon such submission as the case falls within the purview of Section 163A of the Act and thus, the guidelines of the Second Schedule must be followed. (11) We, therefore, reduce the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal below to Rs. 3,93,500/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the application till actual payment of the amount in accordance with the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. (12) Since the appellant/Insurance Company has deposited the entire awarded sum with the learned Registrar General of this Court, the learned Registrar General is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimants/respondents within a month from today. (13) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the balance amount within a month from today. It is needless to mention that running of interest on the amount already deposited by the Insurance Company will stop running from the date of handing over the money to the claimants. (14) Vakalatnama filed by the respondents be kept with the records. (15) With the aforesaid observation, this appeal is, thus, disposed of. (16) In view of disposal of the appeal itself, the connected application has become infructuous and the same is, thus, disposed of.