Judgment Heard both sides. Aggrieved by the lesser payment of compensation, the original petitioners have preferred the present Appeal. 2. Since none of the respondents has filed Appeal or Cross-Objection, the finding of the facts as regards the manner in which the accident has occurred and who is to be blamed for the same, has now attained the finality. 3. The deceased was working as a Principal with one Modern Junior College at Badoda in Gujarat State. At the time of his untimely death, he was 55 years old and while the accident had occurred on 16.5.1991, his date of retirement was 13.10.1994. The salary certificate placed by the present appellants before the learned Tribunal at Exhibit 54, shows that the salary of the deceased was Rs.4073/-per month. However, according to the appellants, he was also working on commission basis, by collecting amount for the National Savings Certificate and Unit Trust of India. It was further contended that the deceased might have earned pension and would have continued or rather increased his activities, as an agent for the saving schemes. 4. The present respondent no.2 M.S.R.T.C. did not file any written statement and, therefore, the case proceeded without written statement. Only the respondent no.5 Oriental General and Fire and Insurance Company Ltd. contested the petition. 5. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of the actual loss of salary for three years and five months, by deducting an amount of Rs.1500/-per month towards the personal expenses from the salary of Rs.4073/-per month, granted compensation of Rs.1,02,500/-. As regards the income from N.S.C. and U.T.I. collection, the income of Rs.5000/-per annum was assumed and by applying multiplier of 6, the same was granted to the extent of Rs.30,000/-. As regards the pension, it was observed by the learned Tribunal that the deceased might have spent around Rs.3000/-or Rs.4000/-per month on his sons. Thus, by applying multiplier of 5, compensation of Rs.20,000/-was arrived. To this total compensation of Rs.1,52,500/-, an amount of Rs.17,500/-on the non-pecuniary head was added and thus the total compensation of Rs. 1,70,000/-is awarded. 6. Mr. S.P. Shah, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted Rs.1500/-towards the personal expenses of the deceased, though there were three dependents in the nature of the present appellants. To this total compensation of Rs.1,52,500/-, an amount of Rs.17,500/-on the non-pecuniary head was added and thus the total compensation of Rs. 1,70,000/-is awarded. 6. Mr. S.P. Shah, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted Rs.1500/-towards the personal expenses of the deceased, though there were three dependents in the nature of the present appellants. He further submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to take into consideration that since the deceased was an energetic person, who was also an agent for N.S.C. and U.T.I., who after the retirement, not only would have continued in the said business, but would have developed the same in view of the retirement, or he might have also started a coaching class and, therefore, merely grant of Rs.30,000/-towards the loss of pension is wrong. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Shelke, learned counsel h/f. Mr. M.K. Goyanka, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 M.S.R.T.C. submitted that the learned Member has applied two different multipliers, one for the salary and another for the pension, which in fact, ought to have been a common multiplier considering the age of the deceased as 55 years. He further submitted that deduction towards the personal expenses is just and hence according to him, no interference is warranted in the award granted by the learned Member. Mr. Nitin Patil, learned counsel h/f. Mr. S.M. Godsay, learned counsel for respondent no.5 supported the arguments of Mr. Shelke, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 8. On the basis of this material, following point arises for my determination: I) Whether the compensation awarded by the learned Member, is just and proper? My finding to the above point is partly in the negative and the Appeal is therefore partly allowed, for the reasons to follow. REASONS : 9. The evidence on record shows that the deceased was 55 years old, working as a Principal and was getting salary of Rs.4,073/-per month. Considering the fact that had he not met with an untimely death at the age of 55 years, there were no chances of revision in the salary, the learned Tribunal held this entire period of 3 years and 5 months, as loss of income. Thereafter, the deduction of Rs.1500/-towards the personal expenses was granted. 10. Mr. Considering the fact that had he not met with an untimely death at the age of 55 years, there were no chances of revision in the salary, the learned Tribunal held this entire period of 3 years and 5 months, as loss of income. Thereafter, the deduction of Rs.1500/-towards the personal expenses was granted. 10. Mr. S.P. Shah, learned counsel submitted that considering the fact that there were three dependents by applying the ratio in the case of "Sarla Verma (Smt.) and ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr. (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121" only 1/3rd deduction ought to have been taken by the learned Member, towards the personal expenses of the deceased. It is however, to be borne in mind that even at the time of filing of the petition, the appellant no.2 Pradeep was in service and appellant no.3 Prashant, a 27 years young man, had no occupation. Even, if we ignore the possibility of appellant no.3 Prashant, getting any employment after the filing of the petition, it would be clear that there were only two dependents and as such deduction of Rs.1500/-towards the personal expenses of the deceased from his salary, cannot be called as unjust. In the circumstances, the learned Member has rightly come to the conclusion that loss of dependency as regards salary would come to Rs.1,02,500/-. 11. We need not disturb the compensation awarded towards the loss of dependency on account of commission from the saving schemes atleast till the date of death of the deceased, as the same is reasonable one. 12. Mr. Shah, further submitted that after the retirement, the deceased might have developed his business of dealing in saving schemes and also might have carried some coaching class activity. It may be noted that these are all uncertain events. It was, however, certain that the deceased might have earned pension after his retirement. The certificate filed by the appellants in the trial Court shows that the deceased thereafter could have earned pension of Rs.2000/-per month. Considering the fact that the deceased has left behind him the widow, the finding of the learned Member that the deceased would have expended some portion of his pension only on his sons, cannot be sustained. 13. It can very well be inferred that from the pension of Rs.2000/-per month, the deceased would have spent an amount of Rs.1000/-per month over himself and Rs.1000/-over the widow. 13. It can very well be inferred that from the pension of Rs.2000/-per month, the deceased would have spent an amount of Rs.1000/-per month over himself and Rs.1000/-over the widow. Thus, the loss of dependency as regards the pension for the appellant no.1 would come to Rs.12,000/-per annum, as the deceased would have earned a pension with effect from 58 years of his age. By applying the multiplier of 8, which would be applicable, as has been standardized in the case of Sarla Varma (cited supra), the loss of dependency under this head would come to Rs.96,000/-, in place of Rs.20,000/-as has been granted by the learned Tribunal. 14. As regards the possibility, as argued by Mr. Shah, that the deceased might have developed his savings business or would have started any coaching class, those are all uncertainties. It is not disputed that the compensation is to be granted by taking into consideration the certainties as well as uncertainties and in that view of the matter, it can also be inferred that due to the old age, the deceased might have lowered his activities and would have remained satisfied in earning the pension, as his two young sons would have earned and fend him. In the circumstances, the compensation granted towards the loss of pension only would be just and sufficient. 15. There is no need to interfere with the compensation granted on the non-pecuniary heads. In the circumstances, the Appeal is partly allowed to the extent of grant of an amount of Rs.76,000/-(i.e. Rs.96000/-(-) Rs.20000/-) only towards to the loss of compensation on account of the pension, with proportionate costs. As regards the interest, it may be noted that the claim petition was filed before the learned Tribunal in the year 1991. The present Appeal is preferred in the year 1996. Therefore, the grant of interest at any rate would be atrocious, sofar as the respondents are concerned. In the circumstances, a lumpsum amount of Rs.24,000/-i.e. enhanced total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-would be in the interest of justice. Sofar as the grant of gratuity is concerned, grant of lumpsum interest takes care of the same. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed in the above terms, with proportionate costs. 16. In the circumstances, a lumpsum amount of Rs.24,000/-i.e. enhanced total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-would be in the interest of justice. Sofar as the grant of gratuity is concerned, grant of lumpsum interest takes care of the same. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed in the above terms, with proportionate costs. 16. In case the amount as granted above, is not paid or deposited within a period of four months, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of default, till the realization.