Hon'ble TRIPATHI, J.—The National Insurance Co. Ltd. along with the Owner and the Driver of the vehicle is before this Court being aggrieved by judgment and award dated 14th June 1996, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 581 of 1995. 2.0 The Tribunal was pleased to pass the following order: "The petition is partly allowed. All the opponents do pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner together with interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of the petition till realization with proportionate cost. However, if the said amount is deposited in this Tribunal within a period of 5 months from the date of this order, then the opponents will be at liberty to deposit the said amount with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization. On realization, first the deficit court fee, if any, and the interim compensation if paid, shall be deducted and thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 be given 20% amount in cash by account payee cheque only and remaining entire amount be invested in FD with any Nationalized Bank for a period of 10 years in the joint names of all the petitioners. The Bank concerned is hereby directed not to float any loan, advance, or create any encumbrance against the said FDR without prior permission of this Tribunal. However, the petitioners will be at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued from time to time on the said FDR." 3.0 The learned advocate Mr. Parikh for Mr. RH Mehta for the appellant No. 3 - Insurance Company vehemently submitted that the Court below has committed an error in arriving at a figure of Dependency Benefit. In this regard, the learned advocate for the appellant invited attention of the Court to Para 12 of the judgment and award, wherein, the Issue No. 3 is considered by the Tribunal. Para 12 is reproduced for the ready perusal: "12. According to the petitioners, deceased was serving as Teacher in the school and was earning Rs.5000/- p.a. The petitioners have adduced pay Bill of the deceased at Exh. 30 to this effect. According to the petitioners, deceased was hale and hearty and was sole bread winner of the entire family and they all were fully dependent upon the income of the deceased. 30 to this effect. According to the petitioners, deceased was hale and hearty and was sole bread winner of the entire family and they all were fully dependent upon the income of the deceased. According to the petitioner, had the deceased not died in this accident, he could have become a principle (sic. principal) of the school and thereby could have contributed economically more to the family. Looking to the documentary evidence adduced by the petitioners, and bearing in mind that the deceased was yet to put in service and looking to his future prospects of promotions and also bearing in mind the factor like inflation, devaluation of rupee, diminishing purchasing power of rupee, sky rocketing price hike in essential commodities, and also bearing in mind the principles laid down in AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1631, prospective income of the deceased can be assessed at Rs.10,000/- p.m. and the dependency of the petitioners, would thus be Rs.80,000/- per annum. Looking to the age of the deceased, the petitioners are entitled to a multiplier of 8 years and the datum figure would be Rs.6,40,000/-. The petitioners are also entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the head of loss of estate. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.6,60,000/-. However, as discussed in the foregoing paras of this judgment, the deceased was also contributory negligent at the ratio of 25% and therefore, an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- will have to be deducted therefrom and the net figure would thus be Rs.5,00,000/- to which the petitioners are entitled to recover as compensation." 3.1 The learned advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the prospective income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. The learned advocate for the appellant invited attention of the Court to the decision of the Honorable the Apex Court in the matter Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 in support of his submissions that, 'the deceased was in service. He was aged 52 years and therefore, it was not open for the Tribunal to assess his prospective income at Rs.10,000/- per month'. He submitted that it is on record that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. He was aged 52 years and therefore, it was not open for the Tribunal to assess his prospective income at Rs.10,000/- per month'. He submitted that it is on record that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. If that is so, the Tribunal was not required to make a guess about the prospective income of the deceased and the amount could very well be ascertained from the pay-scale in which he was serving and, for the sake of argument it is considered that he was to get promotion to the post of Principal, even that pay-scale could have been placed on record. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that in absence of that, the Tribunal has erred in making an arbitrary assessment of the prospective income and to that extent, the Tribunal has gone wrong in arriving at the figure of Dependency Benefit and making award of Rs.5 lakhs. 3.2 The learned advocate for the appellant invited attention of the Court to the Rule of Thumb laid down by the Honorable the Apex Court in the said decision. The Rule is as under: "In view of 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. 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 deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances." 3.3 The learned advocate for the appellant invited attention of the Court to Para 11 of the said decision, wherein, this Rule of Thumb is set out. The learned advocate for the appellant then invited attention of the Court to the fact that in the present case, the deceased was of 52 years of age. The learned advocate for the appellant then invited attention of the Court to the fact that in the present case, the deceased was of 52 years of age. That being so, the learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the amount derived under the head of Dependency Benefit is excessively higher and therefore, it is required to be altered. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that Rs.5,000/- was the salary of the deceased. Applying the same Rule of Thumb, though in stricto senso, that Rule is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the deceased was of 52 years of age. If his prospective income is taken to be the double to the present one, it comes to Rs.10,000/- (Rs.5,000 x 2). Rs.5000/- + Rs.10,000/- = Rs.15,000/- is required to be divided by 02 (two), the figure comes to Rs.7,500/-. Out of that amount (Rs.7,500/-), 1/3 amount is to be deducted towards his person expenses, the figure comes to Rs.5,000/-. That figure of Rs.5,000/- multiplied by 12 (twelve), the figure comes to Rs.60,000/- and multiplied by 08 (eight), the figure comes to Rs.4,80,000/-, in which Rs.20,000/- is added towards the Loss of Estate, the amount comes to Rs.5,00,000/-. He submitted that out of this amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, if the amount towards contributory negligence, which is determined at 25% is reduced, the amount comes to Rs.3,75,000/-. 4.0 The learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya could not dislodge the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant and fact that no increase is awardable to the deceased on account of his age being 52 years, this Court is of the opinion that the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company is required to be accepted. 5.0 That being so, the First Appeal is allowed. The amount of award is reduced to Rs.3,75,000/- instead of Rs.5,00,000/-. Rest of the directions issued by the Tribunal are maintained. 5.1 At the request of learned advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company it is clarified that it will be open for the Insurance Company to make necessary application before the Tribunal for refund of the excess amount, which the Tribunal shall consider and pass appropriate orders within 04 (four) weeks from the date of such application being made.