ORDER 27.07.2009 — Learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents are present. On consent, the matter is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. Heard. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment/award passed by 3rd MACT, Bhubaneswar in Misc. Case No. 358 of 1993 awarding compensation amount of Rs. 5,55,000/- with interest @ 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e., 25.08.1993 till payment in favour of claimants/re¬spondents payable by appellant no.1 - Orissa State Road Transport Corporation (for the short ‘OSRTC) on account of death of de¬ceased Niranjan Mohapatra in a road accident involving offending bus belonging to the appellant Corporation. It reveals from the judgment/award that in order to substan¬tiate their claim, the claimants examined two witnesses including respondent no.1 as P.W.1 apart from relying upon documents marked Exts. 1 to 9. No evidence was adduced from the side of the re¬spondents. Considering the evidence on record, learned Tribunal has concluded that death of the deceased was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. P.W.1 testified that the deceased who was working as a Section Officer in the office of Registrar, Co-operative Society, Orissa, Bhubaneswar was getting Rs. 4,132/- as monthly salary. Salary Certificate Ext. 5 reveals that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 3,880/- per month. Also P.W.1 deposed that the deceased was 55 years old. Learned Tribu¬nal, having observed that the deceased would have been in service for another three years for which there were prospects for promo¬tion and enhancement on salary, estimated deceased’s average gross income at Rs. 6,000/- per month. Deducting 1/3 of the income towards deceased’s personal expenses and adopting multiplier of ‘11’, the claimants’ loss of dependency was worked out at Rs. 5,28,000/-. In addition, the claimants were held to be entitled to Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium and estate, Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards mental shock and agony. In assailing the impugned award it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that quantum of compensation is highly excessive and unjust. 5,28,000/-. In addition, the claimants were held to be entitled to Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium and estate, Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards mental shock and agony. In assailing the impugned award it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that quantum of compensation is highly excessive and unjust. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SARALA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS -VRS- DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER, (2009) 6 SCC 121 it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that as the deceased was more than 55 years old, learned Tribunal should have assessed loss of dependency on the basis of actual salary re¬ceived by him. There should not have any addition to actual salary on the ground of future prospects and career advancement. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that taking into account the deceased’s age, application of multi¬plier of ‘11’ is on the higher side. It is further argued that direction to pay the award along with interest at the rate of as high as 12 per cent per annum legally untenable. In reply, learned counsel for the appellants presses into service the decision in ABATI BEZBARUAH -VRS.- DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA AND ANOTHER, 2003 (2) T.A.C. 18 (S.C.) to urge that learned Tribunal was unjustified in apply¬ing multiplier of ‘11’ and taking into account deceased’s future prospects of promotion and career advancement. In course of hearing it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respond¬ents that taking pragmatic view, just decision payable to the respondents may be determined by adopting Lok Adalat spirit. Having heard the learned counsel, it is found that reliance of the decision in ABATI BEZBARUAH (supra) by the learned counsel for the appellants is misplaced. Said decision involved claim on account of death of deceased who died at the age of 40 only. Having heard the learned counsel, it is found that reliance of the decision in ABATI BEZBARUAH (supra) by the learned counsel for the appellants is misplaced. Said decision involved claim on account of death of deceased who died at the age of 40 only. In SARALA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS (supra) it has been held:- “In Susamma Thomas this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7 %.In view of the imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words “actual salary” should be read as “actual salary less tax”). The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standard¬ize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. Where the de¬ceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provi¬sion for annual increments, etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure there¬from should be made only in a rare and exceptional cases involv¬ing special circumstances.” Considering the rival submissions and materials on record, I am of the considered judgment that interest of justice shall be best served in case the award amount is modified and reduced from Rs.5,55,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- to be payable along with interest @ 7 per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. Accordingly, appellant no.1 OSRTC is directed to deposit the modified amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest @ 7 percent from the date of filing of application till the date of payment within two months from today with the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, appellant no.1 OSRTC is directed to deposit the modified amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest @ 7 percent from the date of filing of application till the date of payment within two months from today with the learned Tribunal. On deposit of the amount learned Tribunal Shall keep the same in fixed deposits and disburse to the claimants in the same proportion in which the award amount had been apportioned among the claimants in the im¬pugned award. On production of receipt showing deposit of the modified amount with interest with the Tribunal, statutory deposit made with this Court along with accrued interest be refunded to the appellants on proper application. The MA is accordingly disposed of. MA disposed of.