Judgment :- These two appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 1.2.2010 in MVC No.1289/2007 on the file of the MACT, Mangalore. MFA No.4039/2010 is filed by the insurer questioning the quantum of compensation whereas MFA No.9351/2010 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Claimants are wife and major children of the deceased who died in a road accident that occurred on 11.5.2007. He was working as a Junior Engineer in New Mangalore Port Trust drawing salary of Rs.20,768/- p.m. and was aged about 57 years at the time of death. The Tribunal, after giving deduction towards the income tax at the rate of 15% and after giving deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, has calculated the compensation towards loss of dependency at Rs.13,61,000/- and in all, has awarded compensation of Rs. 14,34,000/- with interest, as against which, these appeals are filed. 3. Learned counsel for the insurer submitted that, admittedly, the deceased was an employee in a Government organization and he was due to retire shortly, as such, his full salary should have been taken into consideration for the period till the retirement and 50% of the same should have been taken for calculation of loss of dependency. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that, in view of the remaining period of service, the deceased could have got the benefit of increments and promotions. Having regard to the same, the income of the deceased has to be taken as per the salary and the multiplier as applicable has to be taken. Application of the multiplier is only for the purpose of calculating loss of dependency. The fact is that, by method of multiplier, it includes the other eventualities and therefore, relied on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2000 SC 3583 in the case of ‘Uyoti Kaul and Others V. State of M.P. and Another’ and submitted that the Apex Court, in the case of a Government employee, has applied 15 as the multiplier and taken the salary and has given the compensation. He also relied on another judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2011 SAR (Civil) 283 in the case of ‘K.R. Madhusudan & Others V. Administrative Officer & Anr,’, wherein the Apex Court has not adopted the dividing method and has taken full salary for the purpose of calculated of loss of dependency. He also relied on the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.4134/2002 and submitted that the Division Bench has also accepted the same. 5. No doubt, it is true that the Government employee is bound to retire and also true that after retiring, he cannot get the same salary as he was drawing earlier, however, the method of multiplier is adopted only to calculate the compensation towards loss of dependency which is not dependent on the retirement or non-retirement. This aspect of the matter is considered by the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.4134/2002, wherein, it is observed as under: “(2) In a case of a victim of a road accident having pensionable job, for the purpose of calculating loss of dependency, the income drawn by the deceased as on the date of death including his career progression subject to deduction as aforesaid shall be the basic factor. It cannot be divided into two parts, one during which he was entitled to full salary, and the latter period when he was entitled for pension. His gross salary subject to statutory deductions should be the basis factor which shall be subject to his personal expenses. The figure so arrived shall be the multiplicand to which appropriate multiplier will be applicable. The component of pension shall not be the criterion for determining loss of future dependency after superannuation.” 6. The Apex Court in the case of ‘K.R. Madhusudan & Others V. Administrative Officer & Anr,’ reported in 2011 SAR (Civil) 283 following the view taken by the Apex Court in Sarla Varma’s case, has observed as under: “9. In the Sarla Verma (supra) judgment the Court has held that there should be no addition to income for future prospects where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. The learned Bench called it a rule of thumb and it was developed so as to avoid uncertainties in the outcomes of litigation. However, the Bench held that a departure can be made in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. The learned Bench called it a rule of thumb and it was developed so as to avoid uncertainties in the outcomes of litigation. However, the Bench held that a departure can be made in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. We are of the opinion that the rule of thumb evolved in Sarla Verma (Supra) is to be applied to those cases where there was no conorete evidence on record of definite rise in income due to future prospects. Obviously, the said rule was based on assumption and to avoid uncertainties and inconsistencies in the interpretation of different courts, and to overcome the same.” 7. The Apex Court, also, in the case of in the case of Uyoti Kaul and Others V. State of M.P. And Another’ reported in AIR 2000 SC 3583 has observed as under: “10. The aforesaid decision makes it clear that the principle of multiplier would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Looking to the facts of this case we find that the tribunal has given good reasons for applying the multiplier of 15. This was in addition of taking into consideration that the predecessor of the deceased all lived for more than 80 years. High Court reduced the multiplier from 15 to 10 without taking into circumstances considered by the Tribunal and thus committed the error. We, accordingly, set aside the findings of the High Court only to the extent the application of multiplier and uphold other findings including reduction of interest. The present appeal, accordingly, succeeds in part. The computation of compensation now shall be made on the basis of multiplier of 15. The difference enhanced amount which has yet not been paid by the respondent State shall be paid to the claimants within a period of three months from today”. 8. In view of the judgment of this Court and also Apex Court, the consistent view taken is that, even in case of Government employee who is liable for retirement after attaining the age of superannuation, the Courts have held that there is no detriment for applying multiplier method by taking into consideration the full salary as there is possibility of increments and promotions. Having regard to the same, I find that the Tribunal has taken the income and given right deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses and awarded compensation. Having regard to the same, I find that the Tribunal has taken the income and given right deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses and awarded compensation. No grounds are made out for interference regarding the salary as it has been taken rightly by the Tribunal. Though there is little higher compensation granted on the conventional heads, but looking to the loss of the person to the family, it cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, both the appeals fail and are dismissed. Amount in deposit is transmitted to the Tribunal.