JUDGMENT : Ashim Kumar Banerjee, Shukla Kabir Sinha, JJ. The appeal would relate to awarding of compensation to the bereaved family of a Government employee. The Tribunal mechanically applied the 2nd Schedule ignoring the fact that the claim application was made under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, that does not specifically obligate the Tribunal to apply the 2nd Schedule, which is appended to the said Act as a ready reckoner for claim application made under Section 163-A. 2. The case in hand before us would relate to an application under Section 166. The Tribunal awarded compensation by using the multiplier of 8 and calculating the compensation strictly as per the 2nd Schedule. 3. Pertinent to note, that the victim died at the age of 56 years, having about four years service left to his credit. Both the claimants as well as the Insurance Company are aggrieved by the said decision. The Insurance Company preferred the instant appeal on the ground that the Tribunal should not have mechanically applied the multiplier of 12 adopting the 2nd Schedule. The Tribunal should have followed the formula so prescribed by one of our Division Bench decisions in the cases of Smt. Sankari Banik & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in 2009 (4) T.A.C. 446 (Cal.) and Smt. Rita Ghosh & Ors. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., reported in 2010 (3) T.A.C. 21 (Cal.) followed in subsequent decision in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sajeda Begum & Ors., reported in 2010 (2) T.A.C. 840 (Cal.). 4. Pertinent to note, in all the three decisions the Division Bench adopted a different mode to calculate the compensation by taking into account the gross salary, which the victim could get had he been alive for rest of his service life and thereafter calculate the actual compensation by giving credit to available deduction including ?rd of such income amounting to personal expense. 5. The claimants No. 1 and 2 are aggrieved, as the Tribunal did not award any interest. The claimants are also aggrieved, as the Tribunal considered the net income instead of gross income less the professional tax, which the victim was supposed to pay. 6. Mr. K.K. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has heavily relied upon three Division Bench decisions referred to (supra). Mr. The claimants are also aggrieved, as the Tribunal considered the net income instead of gross income less the professional tax, which the victim was supposed to pay. 6. Mr. K.K. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has heavily relied upon three Division Bench decisions referred to (supra). Mr. Das contends that the Division Bench adopted the formula to be applied in case of Government servants when they succumbed to injury being involved in the accident. Mr. Das further contends that the bereaved family would automatically be entitled to appropriate pension, which the victim could also receive had he been alive. Hence, it would be apt to award compensation by considering the amount of salary, which the victim could earn for the unexpired period of service. To support his contention Mr. Das has also relied upon the Apex Court decision in the case of Bangalore Metropolita Transport Corporation v. Padma & Ors., reported in 2009 ACJ 1336 . In the said decision a Government employee died at the age of 54 years, being hit by a Corporation bus. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 8, as we find from paragraph 7 of the said decision. We, however, do not get any logic advanced by the Apex Court to support such multiplier. Significant to note, if we strictly follow the 2nd Schedule, the multiplier would be 11. We do not know what was the retiring age of the victim. Had it been 58 years, the deceased would have four years service left and in case of 60 years, it would be six years. 7. Per contra, Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mondal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants refers to a latest decision of the Apex Court in the case of K.R. Madhusudhan & Ors. v. Administrative Officer & Anr., reported in 2011 ACJ 743 (SC) : AIR 2011 SC (Civil) 639, wherein the Apex Court rejected the contention that a different policy should not be adopted in case of Government servant. In the said case the deceased was 53 years old. The Apex Court upheld the application of multiplier of 11 by the Tribunal, which was reversed by the High Court. The Apex Court held that there was no reason why the multiplier of 11 would not be considered when the victim was within the age group of 51years to 55years. In the said case the deceased was 53 years old. The Apex Court upheld the application of multiplier of 11 by the Tribunal, which was reversed by the High Court. The Apex Court held that there was no reason why the multiplier of 11 would not be considered when the victim was within the age group of 51years to 55years. Paragraph 14 of the said decision, being relevant herein is quoted below :- "In view of this evidence the Tribunal should have considered the prospect of future income while computing compensation but the Tribunal has not done that. In the appeal, which was filed by the appellants before the High Court, the High Court instead of maintaining the amount of compensation, granted by the Tribunal, reduced the same. In doing so, the High Court had not given any reason. The High Court introduced the concept of split multiplier and departed from the multiplier used by the Tribunal without disclosing any reason there for. The High Court has also not considered the clear and corroborative evidence about the prospect of future increment of the deceased. When the age of the deceased is between 51 and 5 years the multiplier is 11, which is specified in the II Column in the II Schedule in the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Tribunal has not committed any error by accepting the said multiplier. This Court also fails to appreciate why the High Court chose to apply the multiplier of 6." 8. Pertinent to note, the Apex Court observed : "The Court also fails to appreciate why the High Court chose to apply the multiplier of 6. We presume, multiplier of 6 was applied by the High Court, possibly taking into account the unexpired period of service. 9. We have considered the rival contentions. In our view, the appeal of the Insurance Company should fail as we do not find any illegality in application of multiplier of 8, done by the Tribunal. It is true, that a Government employee would get an assured pension, in case it was a pension able service. It is also true, had he been alive, he would have earned salary for the unexpired period of service. This logic would also be applicable in case of other salaried persons, who work in private Establishments, having a pension able service. It is also true, had he been alive, he would have earned salary for the unexpired period of service. This logic would also be applicable in case of other salaried persons, who work in private Establishments, having a pension able service. Hence, the logic with regard to fixing of a different mode in case of a Government employee, does not hold good. 10. Mr. Das has drawn our attention to three Judge Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Trilok Chandra & Ors., reported in 1996 ACJ 831. In the said decision the Apex Court observed that in case of application under Section 166, the Court may rely upon the 2nd Schedule as a mere guidance, it cannot be applied mechanically, particularly when it was not an application under Section 163-A. Following the logic, we find that the Court and/or the Tribunal, as the case may be, would have wide discretion to apply any particular mode to assess just compensation in an accidental death or injury resulting in disability when such claim is made under Section 166 of the said Act of 1988. 11. Coming to the present case, we are of the view that the victim was 56 years old. If we follow the 2nd schedule the multiplier of 8 would have been the appropriate. We cannot brush aside the fact that in case of death the family pension, which the bereaved family would get, would be much less than the actual pension, the victim would have received had he been alive. Even if we apply the theory of deduction of ?rd as personal expense, the amount of family pension would not match the actual amount of pension. In our view, when there is no other appropriate mechanism available to us and when a particular handy procedure is available, there is no reason why we should not follow the same, particularly when the victim was a salaried employee and was receiving a particular fixed sum every month. We do not find any illegality committed by the Tribunal on that score. 12. This leaves us with the cores appeal preferred by the claimants. The Tribunal calculated the compensation by taking the net salary, which the victim was getting. We do not find any illegality committed by the Tribunal on that score. 12. This leaves us with the cores appeal preferred by the claimants. The Tribunal calculated the compensation by taking the net salary, which the victim was getting. The Tribunal possibly overlooked the fact that the income tax deducted at source could not be taken into account, as the compensation if received by the claimant, would again be assessed as the income of the claimant-assessee. It was not an income of the deceased, who was an assessee under the Income Tax Act. It would be considered as income of the heirs and legal representatives hence, the amount would not be taxable at the hand of the deceased assessee. The Tribunal erred in taking into consideration the tax deducted as source. 13. In our view, the gross salary, less the professional tax and appropriate deduction, should be taken into account while calculating the just compensation. 14. The Tribunal also erred in not allowing any interest on the awarded amount. The accident occurred on June 14, 2007. The claimants applied for compensation on July 27, 2007, whereas the Tribunal published the award on December 08, 2009 and the Insurance Company deposited the amount on May 17, 2010 hence, there is no reason why the claimants would not get any interest on the said amount. The calculation would be as follows :- Annual Income would be (20,000 x 12) Rs. 2,40,000/- Less. ⅓rd Rs. 80,000/- Rs. 1,60,000/- Considering the age deceased following the 2nd Schedule of M.V. Act the multiplier would be 8 After applying the multiplier of 8 the assessment would be (1,60,000 x 8) Rs. 12,80,000/- Funeral Expenses & Loss of estate Rs. 9,500/- TOTAL = Rs. 12,89,500/- 15. In our view, the claimants would get interest on the said amount at the rate of 7% p.a. on and from July 27, 2007, being the date of filing of claim petition till May 17, 2010, being the date of deposit made by the Insurance Company. 16. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the aforesaid sum along with the interest on the same proportion fixed by the Tribunal to the respective claimants through account payee cheques to be sent at the respective recorded address by registered post with acknowledgement due. Such payment must reach the claimants within six weeks from the date of communication of this order. 17. Such payment must reach the claimants within six weeks from the date of communication of this order. 17. Upon such payment being made, the Insurance Company would be entitled to withdraw the amount lying with the Registrar General along with the accrued interest, if any. 18. The appeal along with the application and the cross appeal are disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs. 19. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis.