JUDGMENT : Ravi R. Tripathi, J. The National Insurance Company Ltd. along with one Sarah Ahmed Ishak is before this Court being aggrieved by judgment and award dated 30th September 1991 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 4 (Auxiliary) at Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 131 of 1987, whereby, the learned Tribunal was pleased to pass the following order: "i...The claim petition is partly allowed. The opponent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally do pay a sum of Rs. 5,81,000/- to the petitioners by way of compensation along with 12 per cent interest thereon from the date of petition till payment. ii...The opponent No. 2, The National Insurance Co. Ltd., is hereby directed and ordered to deposit the above amount with interest and cost within eight week's time from today. iii...Out of the amount deposited, the deficit court fees, if any, be first deducted as per the rules. iv...As per the purshis filed by the learned advocate for the petitioners, the shares of the legal heirs are fixed as under: Rs. 1,93,000/- to the petitioner No. 1. Rs. 1,93,000/- to the petitioner No. 2 and Rs. 1,95,000/- to the petitioner No. 3. The whole amount of the petitioner No. 3 and Rs. 1,50,000/- in the name of each petitioner No. 1 and 2 be invested out of their shares in any of the Nationalised Banks for a period of 7 years on usual terms and conditions with the instructions to the bank not to give any loan or advance and/or not to create any kind of charge or lien over such Fixed Deposit. The amount of interest and cost is to be shared equally by all the three petitioners. v... The award to be drawn up accordingly... 2.0 The learned advocate Mr. Parikh appearing for the appellant - Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in calculating the Dependency Benefit in two parts, the first part comprising of five years' active service and second part calculated on the basis of expected income after retirement for a period of 07 years. The learned advocate submitted that, that brings the multiplier to be of 12 years in a case of a person who was aged 53 years on the day of the accident. The learned advocate submitted that, that brings the multiplier to be of 12 years in a case of a person who was aged 53 years on the day of the accident. He submitted that by any standard, the multiplier of 12 to a person aged 53 years is on a higher side and this is required to be corrected. 2.1 Besides, he submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in calculating the Dependency Benefit on the basis of salary which the deceased would have received w.e.f. 01/08/1987 as there was a pay revision in the organisation in which he was serving (GSRTC). He submitted that besides that the Tribunal, while calculating the amount of dependency, it had deducted only an amount of Rs. 1,750/- towards the personal expenses. He submitted that in a family consisting of husband 53 years old, wife 50 years old, elder son 27 years old and second son aged 25 years, the personal expenses will be much more than the ?rd conventional figure. He submitted that, in fact, the personal expenses may be as high as 50% because the major sons aged 25 years and 27 years old will be having their own source of income and the person concerned will have to share his income only with his wife. He submitted that the matter requires consideration on the aforesaid aspects and the amount awarded is required to be suitably reduced. 3. This Court, while admitting the matter, was pleased to pass the following order in Civil Application No. 225 of 1992: "Rule. Ad-interim stay as prayed for granted on condition that the applicants deposit the sum of Rs. Three lacs within six weeks from today in the trial Court. The said amount shall be invested in any Nationalised Bank in a Fixed Deposit for a period of seven years. Opponents claimants shall be at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest that may accrue on deposit. The amount shall be deposited in the sum of Rs. One lac each in the name of each claimant. Applicants shall give undertaking before this Court to the effect that in case of their failure in appeal they shall pay the balance award amount with interest within six weeks from the date of disposal of appeal. The amount shall be deposited in the sum of Rs. One lac each in the name of each claimant. Applicants shall give undertaking before this Court to the effect that in case of their failure in appeal they shall pay the balance award amount with interest within six weeks from the date of disposal of appeal. 3.1 The learned advocate for the appellant states that the aforesaid amount is deposited by this Court and an Undertaking is filed on 26th February 1992 by the Assistant Administrative Officer of Division Office No. 2 of the National Insurance Co. Ltd. The Undertaking reads as under: "I, R.G. Satani, Assistant Administrative Officer, Division Office No. 2 of National Insurance Co. Ltd., the Appellant, above named, do hereby agree and undertake on behalf of National Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay further amount with interest, if any, as may be directed by the Honourable Court within 6 weeks from the date of disposal of this appeal. Solemnly affirmed on this 26th Day of February 1992 at Ahmedabad. 3.2 The learned advocate for the appellant invited attention of the Court to the relevant discussion on the aspect of quantum, which is discussed in Para 9. The relevant part of which reads as under: "...At the relevant time, the deceased was serving in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation as Divisional Controller in Commerce Department. To prove the income of the deceased, the petitioners examined two witnesses from S.T. Corporation named Gautambhai Shah and Surendra Stevan at Exhs. 34 and 35 respectively. Mr. Gautambhai Shah was the clerk in the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation in Accounts Department. He stated in his deposition that Mr. Narendrabhai was serving with him in S.T. Corporation on the post of Divisional Controller in Commerce Department. The petitioners produced a Statement of Salary at Exh. 43 to prove the exact salary of the deceased. On perusal of the same it appears that the salary of the deceased at the time of accident was Rs. 4910.15ps. per month. Therefore, the petitioners successfully proved the income of the deceased at the relevant time of accident. The petitioners also produced Certificate at Exh. 100 to prove that had the deceased been alive he would have got a pay grade, which was made effective from 1/8/87. 4910.15ps. per month. Therefore, the petitioners successfully proved the income of the deceased at the relevant time of accident. The petitioners also produced Certificate at Exh. 100 to prove that had the deceased been alive he would have got a pay grade, which was made effective from 1/8/87. Therefore, it can be said that had the deceased been alive he would have got the salary under the new grade effective from 1/8/87, which comes to Rs. 8,240/- per month vide Exh. 101. The deceased died on 17/7/87 and salary under grade was effective from 1/8/87 and as per the new grade the deceased would have received salary of Rs. 8,240/- on 1/8/87. Therefore, the revised pay-scale introduced from time to time should be looked into by the Tribunal. The new pay-scale which came in effect from 1/8/87 should be taken into account as per Exh. 100 and if the revised pay-scale is taken into account, then the deceased would have received salary of Rs. 5,050/- as basic and the proportionate share of D.A. Rs. 1,440/-, H.R.A. Rs. 1,000/-, C.L.A. Rs. 100/- and P.F. Rs. 704/-. Therefore the total figure the deceased would have received on the application of the revised scale would be of Rs. 8,240/-. The application is in proportion of basic scale of Rs. 5,050/-. So it appears that had the deceased been alive, he would have got salary of Rs. 8,240/- per month from 1/8/87 onwards... " 3.3 The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that in view of the decision of the Honourable the Apex Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jashuben and Ors., reported in AIR 2008 SC 1734 the Tribunal has committed an error in taking into consideration the revision of pay. He submitted that the Honourable the Apex Court has observed as under in Paras 25, 26 and 27 : "25. We, therefore, are of the opinion that what would have been the income of the deceased on the date of retirement was not a relevant factor in the light of peculiar facts of this case and, thus, the approach of the Tribunal and the High Court must be held to be incorrect. It is impermissible in law to take into consideration the effect of revision in scale of pay w.e.f. 1.1.1997 or what would have been the scale of pay in 2002. 26. It is impermissible in law to take into consideration the effect of revision in scale of pay w.e.f. 1.1.1997 or what would have been the scale of pay in 2002. 26. The loss of dependency, in our opinion, should be calculated on the basis as if the basic pay of the deceased been Rs. 3295/- x 2 = Rs. 6,590/-, thereto should be added 18.5% dearness allowance which comes to Rs. 1219/-, child education allowance for two children @ Rs. 240/- x 2 = Rs. 480 and child bus fair Rs. 160 x 2 = Rs. 320/- should have been added which comes to Rs. 8,609/-. 27. From the aforementioned figure ?rd should be deducted. After deduction, the amount of income comes to Rs. 5,738/- per month [Rs.8609/- # Rs. 2871/-] and the amount of compensation should be determined by adopting the multiplier of 13, which comes to Rs. 8,95,128/-." 3.4 In the case on hand, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the revision of pay, whereby, the basic pay of the deceased, which was Rs. 2,260/- and which came to be revised w.e.f. 01/08/1987 (the accident occurred on 17/07/1987 and the person died spontaneously). Under the revision, the basic pay of Rs. 2,260/- came to be revised to Rs. 5,500/- and accordingly, he was entitled to D.A. of Rs. 1,540/- and P. F. Deductions @ 10% would have been Rs. 704/- and the S.T. Corporation has issued a communication dated 19/09/1990, which is produced at Exh. 100, wherein, it is stated that, if deceased Narendrabhai would have been alive and would have been in the service of the Corporation and would have been on the same post, then, his pay-scale would have been as mentioned hereinunder'. It is also stated that, this pay-scale has come in force w.e.f. 01/08/1987. The pay-scale is Rs. 3,200 125 4450 150 5650'. It is then stated that, according to new pay-scale, his basic pay would have been Rs. 5,500/-, D.A. Rs. 1,540/-, taking @ 10% P. F. deduction would have been Rs. 704/- and equal amount would have been contributed by the employer in P. F. amount'. 3.5 The learned advocate submitted that as pronounced by the Honourable the Apex Court, the revision of pay is not required to be taken into consideration. 5,500/-, D.A. Rs. 1,540/-, taking @ 10% P. F. deduction would have been Rs. 704/- and equal amount would have been contributed by the employer in P. F. amount'. 3.5 The learned advocate submitted that as pronounced by the Honourable the Apex Court, the revision of pay is not required to be taken into consideration. Assuming for the sake of argument that the revision of pay is not required to be taken into consideration, then also, as was calculated by the Honour-able the Apex Court, in the case on hand, his pay-scale is required to be doubled, as mentioned in Para 26. On that amount, admissible D.A. is to be calculated and other benefits which are not related to the employee concerned are also required to be taken into consideration and if that is done, the amount would have been Rs. 2,260/- x 2 = 4,520/-, Rs. 2,214/- x 2 = 4,428/- and Rs. 374/- x 2 = 748/-, the total would have been Rs. 9,696/-. Instead of that, the amount which is taken into consideration by the Tribunal is only Rs. 8,240/- and therefore, this Court does not deem it proper to find fault with the judgment and award of the Tribunal on this ground. 4. The question still remains that as to whether a person aged 53 years will be incurring personal expenses only to the tune of Rs. 1,750/- as is deducted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has calculated Dependency Benefit by taking the figure of Rs. 8,240/- deducting an amount of Rs. 1,240/- towards Income-tax, taking the figure to Rs. 7,000/- and from that, ¼th amount towards personal expenses, the Dependency Benefit is calculated at Rs. 5,250/-. This is one thing which requires reconsideration. 4.1 Taking into consideration the fact that his two sons were major, elder being 27 years old and younger being 25 years of age, the deduction cannot be less than ?rd in any case. If that is done, then, the Dependency Benefit is required to calculated at Rs. 4,667/-, making the figure round off, the Dependency Benefit at Rs. 4,650/-, multiplied by 12, will come to yearly Dependency Benefit Rs. 55,800/-. 05 (Five) years is taken as his retirement age, the Dependency Benefit will come down to Rs. 2,79,000/- and therefore, the figure of Rs. 3,18,000/- is reduced to Rs. 2,79,000/-. 4,667/-, making the figure round off, the Dependency Benefit at Rs. 4,650/-, multiplied by 12, will come to yearly Dependency Benefit Rs. 55,800/-. 05 (Five) years is taken as his retirement age, the Dependency Benefit will come down to Rs. 2,79,000/- and therefore, the figure of Rs. 3,18,000/- is reduced to Rs. 2,79,000/-. 4.2 So far as the second part of the calculation of Dependency Benefit is concerned, the amount taken as Dependency Benefit of Rs. 4,000/- - Rs. 1,000/- does not warrant an interference but the multiplier applied of 07 is required to be reduced to bring in line with the normal multiplier apply to a person aged 53 years. The same is reduced to 03. Therefore, total multiplier will be 8 (5 +3). The amount awarded is required to be reduced by Rs. 1,44,000/- out of Rs. 2,52,000/-. Except this, no other amount awarded by the Tribunal warrants any interference by this Court. 5. The learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company has relied upon a decision of the Honourable the Apex Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Pathak and others, reported in AIR 2007 SC 2649 in support of his contention that for a person aged 52 years, the proper multiplier will be of 08. Similarly, the learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company relied upon a decision of Honourable the Apex Court in the matter of Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. Padma and others, reported in 2009 ACJ 1336 in support of his contention that in case of a person aged 53 years, the multiplier adopted of 12 is on a higher side and it should have been only 08. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Adeshra appearing for the claimants vehemently argued that the judgment award of the Tribunal is if not on lower side, then it is just and proper. He submitted that a person with this experience and qualification would have earned much more than what is estimated by the Tribunal at Rs. 4,000/- per month. He also submitted that the appeal requires to be dismissed and exemplary cost is required to be awarded in favour of the claimant who are deprived for all this time of the amount awarded by the Tribunal. In the alternative, he requested that the amount, which may now be awarded, be directed to be paid with interest of 15%. He also submitted that the appeal requires to be dismissed and exemplary cost is required to be awarded in favour of the claimant who are deprived for all this time of the amount awarded by the Tribunal. In the alternative, he requested that the amount, which may now be awarded, be directed to be paid with interest of 15%. 6.1 None of these submissions warrant acceptance at the hands of this Court in view of the discussion made hereinabove. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The amount is reduced from Rs. 5,81,000/- to Rs. 3,98,000/-. As an amount of Rs. 3 lakh is already deposited, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit additional amount of Rs. 98,000/- with proportionate costs and interest within six weeks in terms of the Undertaking. Order accordingly.