JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J 1. This is an appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the MV Act') against the award, dated 22.5.2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Biswanath Chariali, in MAC Case No. 118 of 2004, under Section 166 of the MV Act, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has determined a sum of Rs. 9,48,092, as compensation, payable to the wife and two daughters of deceased Atul Saikia, who had died in a motor vehicular accident, on 5.5.2004, as a result of negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. AS-12/8601, and the learned Tribunal has accordingly directed the insurer to pay the said sum of Rs. 9,48,092 with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application until realization of the entire amount. Aggrieved by the award, the insurer has impugned the same in the present appeal. 2. I have heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the insurer-Appellant, and Mr. N. Choudhury, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the claimant-Respondents. 3. What may be pointed out, at the very outset, is that the finding of the learned Tribunal that the claimant, as legal representative of deceased Atul Saikia, is entitled to receive compensation, for the death of Atul Saikia, is not in dispute in this appeal. It is also not in dispute that, as insurer of the offending truck, the present Appellant is liable to pay compensation to the claimant-Respondents. What is, however, in dispute is the quantum of compensation payable to the claimant. In this regard, it has been pointed out by Mr. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the insurer-Appellant, that the said deceased was a Headmaster of a L.P. School and his age being 53 years 2 months, it is clear that had the said deceased remained alive, he would have served barely for a further period of 6 years 10 months. In such circumstances, points out Mr. Ahmed, the learned Tribunal could not have treated 2/3rd of the pay and allowances, which the said deceased was drawing at the time of his death, as the amount, which would have been receivable by the claimants, had the said deceased remained alive. Mr. In such circumstances, points out Mr. Ahmed, the learned Tribunal could not have treated 2/3rd of the pay and allowances, which the said deceased was drawing at the time of his death, as the amount, which would have been receivable by the claimants, had the said deceased remained alive. Mr. Ahmed further points out that in a case of this nature, when the said deceased had about 6(six) years to retire, his last pay and allowances ought not to have been made the sole basis for determination of compensation. In support of his submission, Mr. Ahmed places reliance on the decisions, in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Kalpana and Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1243 , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Pathak and Ors., AIR 2007 SC 2649 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gunamoni Bora and Ors., 2008 (3) GLT 733. The submission, so made on behalf of the insurer-Appellant, could not be substantially controverted on behalf of the claimant-Respondent. It is in this backdrop that the present appeal deserves to be decided. 4. While considering the present appeal, what needs to be borne in mind is that when the multiplier applicable, in a case of present nature, is higher than the number of years of service, which the deceased could have put in, before his superannuation, the contribution to the family, or loss of dependency of the family, cannot be assessed entirely on the basis of the last salary income of the deceased. When a persons age of superannuation is 60 years and he dies, in a motor vehicular accident, at the age of 53 years, leaving behind his wife and children, the loss of dependency has to be calculated in a manner, which would be quite different from the manner of making assessment of loss of dependency in the case of a married person, who may have died, at the age of 40 years, with about 25 years of service still left. In a case of present nature, when a person dies at the age of 53 years, whose age of superannuation was 60 years, his financial contribution to his family could not have been the same after the age of 60 years as it was at the time of his death. In a case of present nature, when a person dies at the age of 53 years, whose age of superannuation was 60 years, his financial contribution to his family could not have been the same after the age of 60 years as it was at the time of his death. It is, in this light, that the decisions, in Smt. Kalpana (supra), Smt. Shanti Pathak (supra) and Gunamoni Bora (supra), needs to be considered. 5. There is no dispute that in the present case, at the time of his death, the salary income of the said deceased was about. Rs. 10,609 per month and if 1/3rd of this amount, as is usually done, is deducted as the monthly personal expenses of the said deceased, the amount of salary income, available to the claimants (had the said deceased remained alive), would have been Rs. 7,072 per month. When so assessed, the loss of income suffered, at the time of death of the said deceased, by the claimants comes to a sum of Rs. 7,072 every month. 6. Section 168 of the MV Act obliges the Tribunal to award such compensation, which is 'just'. The question as to whether a given amount of compensation or deduction made is or is not 'just' is a mixed question of fact and law. Though, usually, deduction for personal expenses of a deceased is made to the tune of 1/3rd of the income of the deceased, this principle is not of universal application. Deduction would really depend on the facts of a given case. There may be a case, where a person, shows death gives rise to a claim for compensation, would be such a person, who would be spending less that 1/3rd of his income on himself and there would be another person, who would spend more than 1/3rd of his income on himself. In the absence of any clear evidence in this regard, the usual practice is to deduct 1/3rd of such a person's income as his personal expenses. In the present case, since the making of deduction, at the rate of Rs. 3,536 per month, us personal expenses of the said deceased, has not been challenged by the claimants-Respondents even at the time of hearing of this appeal, this Court, while sitting as a court of appeal, has to treat, a sum of Rs. 3,536 as the personal expenses of the said deceased. 3,536 per month, us personal expenses of the said deceased, has not been challenged by the claimants-Respondents even at the time of hearing of this appeal, this Court, while sitting as a court of appeal, has to treat, a sum of Rs. 3,536 as the personal expenses of the said deceased. 7. What is, now, important to bear in mind is that after 6(six) years, when the said deceased would have retired, the income of the said deceased could not have remained Rs. 10,609 per month, for, what would have remained available to him is the pension amount. There is no dispute that in a case of present nature, the pension amount, available to the said deceased, would have been, at best, Rs. 5,779 per month. There is also no dispute that if a person dies at the age of about 53 years, 11 shall be the appropriate multiplier. 8. Thus, while calculating the loss of dependency of the present claimants-Respondent, the income of the said deceased ought to have been divided into two parts, the first part being his salary income till the date of his superannuation and the second part, being his pension amount, for the remaining period of the appropriate multiplier, the appropriate multiplier being 11(eleven). Before superannuation of the said deceased, the loss of dependency, every month, would have been at the rate of Rs. 7,072. As the deceased met with his death before completing 33 years of service, the amount of pension, on the basis of his last pay, comes to a sum of Rs. 5779-350 = Rs. 5424. Consequently, after superannuation, the loss of dependency would have been reduced to a sum of about Rs. 3,503 (i.e., 2/3rd of Rs. 5424 - Rs. 3503). 9. In the present case, since the appropriate multiplier is 11, the loss of dependency will have to be calculated with reference to the salary income for a period of 6 years 10 months and the pension income for the remaining period of 4 years 2 months so that the multiplier of 11 is exhausted. 10. What surfaces from the above discussion is that had the said deceased remained alive, the claimants would have been receiving Rs. 7,072, per month, for a period of 6 years 10 months. 10. What surfaces from the above discussion is that had the said deceased remained alive, the claimants would have been receiving Rs. 7,072, per month, for a period of 6 years 10 months. Thus, the total amount, which would have been receivable by the claimants, had the said deceased remained alive, would have been not more than Es. 5,79,904 (Rs. 7,072 x 12 x 80 months) = Rs. 5,79,904. For the remaining period of 4 years 2 months, the loss of dependency has to be calculated on the basis of loss of pension income, which amounts to a sum of Rs. 3,503 per month and it is this amount of Rs. 3,503 per month, which needs to be multiplied by a period of 4 years 2 months and, when so multiplied, the compensation, for the period of A years 2 months, comes to a sum of Rs. 1,75,150 (Rs. 3,503 x 12 x 4 years 2 months) =1,75,150. Thus, the total sum payable, as pecuniary loss or the loss of dependency of the claimants, works out to a sum of Rs. 7,55,054. To this amount, needs to be added a sum of Rs. 5,000 as loss of consortium and another sum of Rs. 2,000 as funeral expenses, Rs. 2,500 as loss of estate and Rs. 5,000 as loss of love and affection. Hence, the total sum, payable, as compensation, to the claimants-Respondents, would have, at best, been Rs. 7,69,554. 11. Because of what have discussed and pointed out above, the claimant-Respondent is hereby held entitled to receive Rs. 7,69,554 as compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application until realization of the entire compensation amount subject, of course, to adjustment of the amount, which may be paid by the Appellant. 12. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed to the extent as indicated above. The 50 per cent of the awarded amount already deposited with the Registry, is allowed to be withdrawn by the claimant on proper identification and the balance amount shall be deposited with the learned Tribunal within two months. 13. With the above observations and directions, this appeal shall stand disposed of. 14. Send back the LCR. Appeal allowed