Judgment This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the award dated 31.12.2002 passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur (For Short "MACT") in Claim Petition No.646/1998. 2. On 24.12.1997, one Santosh Subhedar was driving a four wheeler-Trax bearing No.MH-31/H-8594 on Nagpur-Umred road. The truck bearing registration No.MTG-5665 collided with the said Trax causing death of Santosh and other four occupants of the Trax. Other 2-3 passengers had also sustained grievous injuries. The truck bearing No.MTG-5665 was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd.-appellant no.1 herein. 3. Leelabai wd/o Santosh filed the petition before the MACT. In that, mother of the deceased was arrayed as respondent no.4. The learned Member, MACT assessed the amount of compensation at Rs.3,10,144/-. Since only an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-was claimed, award was restricted to that much amount. It was surfaced during trial of the claim petition that Leelabai-original claimant had remarried and delivered a daughter from the second marriage. For this reason, no amount was awarded to her. 4. Aggrieved by this award passed by the MACT, this appeal has been preferred raising two grounds. Firstly, it is stated that the learned Member, MACT committed error in choosing "18" as proper multiplier. This is not commensurate with the age of respondent no.4 in whose favour the award has been passed. The second ground raised is that of penal interest awarded by the MACT. The learned Member, MACT directed that in the event the amount is not deposited within 45 days, it shall carry interest at the rate of 15% till its deposit. 5. Mr. Asole, learned counsel for respondent no.2 supported the award. According to him, no ground has been made out to justify interference with the finding recorded by the MACT. The multiplier chosen by the MACT cannot be faulted with since the age of the deceased is relevant. As regards interest, it is submitted that this is a matter of discretion vested in the MACT and the same has been properly exercised. 6. Admittedly, the compensation was denied to Leelabai @ Durgawati widow of the deceased on the ground that she has remarried. When the claim petition was filed, age of respondent no.4 is shown as 60 years. Mr. Khanzode, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon decision in National Insurance Co. 6. Admittedly, the compensation was denied to Leelabai @ Durgawati widow of the deceased on the ground that she has remarried. When the claim petition was filed, age of respondent no.4 is shown as 60 years. Mr. Khanzode, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M/s Swarnlata Das and ors.; 1993 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 743 and Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Lalnipuii; (2006) 13 Supreme Court Cases 226. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. (cited supra), the apex Court held as follows: "The appropriate method of assessment of compensation is the method of capitalisation of net income choosing a multiplier appropriate to the age of the deceased or the age of the dependants whichever multiplier is lower. Though as a rough and ready measure, the method of aggregating the total expected income for the remainder of the life-expectancy with appropriate deductions towards uncertainties of life and for lump-sum payments is also resorted to. But this method is now considered unscientific and is virtually obsolete. At all events wherever it is resorted to it would require to be crosschecked with the results of the appropriate and the more scientific method of capitalisation of the loss of dependency." Similar view has been taken in Ramesh Singh and anr. vs. Satbir Singh and anr.; 2008 ACJ 814 . 7. Considering the aforesaid legal position, the appropriate multiplier would be either "10" or "8". The learned counsel for the appellants has no objection in applying "10" as multiplier. In that light of the matter, by multiplying Rs.16000 by 10, the amount comes to Rs.1,60,000/-. To this amount, Rs.10,000/-has to be added towards damages and Rs.10,000/-towards loss of expectation of life and Rs.2000/-towards funeral expenses. To this amount, further Rs.5,000/-has to be added towards loss of estate. Thus, the respondent no.2 is entitled to Rs.1,87,000/-towards compensation. To this extent, the award passed by the MACT will have to be modified. 8. The learned Member, MACT was right in awarding interest at the rate of 9% p.a., however, erred in awarding penal interest @ 15% p.a. in the event of failure of the respondents to deposit the amount awarded within 45 days from the date of order. It seems that the learned Member, MACT did not consider the provisions of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 171 reads as follows: "171. It seems that the learned Member, MACT did not consider the provisions of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 171 reads as follows: "171. Award of interest where any claim is allowed.-Where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf." It is, therefore, obvious that it does not empower the MACT to award penal interest. 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds partly. The award passed by the MACT is modified as under: The appellants (original respondent Nos.1 and 2) shall pay compensation of Rs.1,87,000/-(Rs. One Lac Eighty Seven Thousand Only) inclusive of No Fault Liability amount to respondent no.2-Tarabai wd/o Vikram Subhedar, r/o Umrer, Tq. Umrer, Dist. Nagpur with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation with proportionate costs throughout. Respondents are left to bear their own costs.