Judgment Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 13.6.2002 passed by the Extra Joint District Judge & Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No.881/1997 awarding a sum of Rs.3,58,000/-plus 9 % interest per annum from 11.11.1997 i.e. date of petition, the present Appeal was filed by the Insurance Company. 2. In support of the Appeal, Mrs. Smita P. Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the deceased-Shriram was a Driver working on the Jeep and nature of his work as such was a casual employment. She argued that there was no evidence to show that he was regularly engaged as a Driver. According to her, therefore, the Tribunal committed an error in taking into consideration his annual income at Rs. 24,000/-per year, which is without any basis. She further argued that the age of the deceased was 21-years at the time of the accident and was unmarried and, as such, the Tribunal ought to have applied the law laid down by the Apex Court in relation to the person dying unmarried. According to her, multiplier of 11 should have been adopted to the age of the parents of the deceased, namely, 50 years for mother and 55 years for father rather than multiplier of 17 that was adopted by the Tribunal. She then argued that the Tribunal erred in not deducting 50% amount from the yearly income of Shriram, the deceased's personal expenses particularly because he was unmarried. She then argued that the Tribunal should not have granted 9% interest per annum and the same should have been made at 6% per annum that too from the date of award passed by the Tribunal. 3. Per contra, Mr. Gopal Mishra, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents 1 to 6 vehemently opposed the Appeal and argued that no fault can be found with the Tribunal since the deceased's age was only 21 years and by growing age he would have earned more and more and being unmarried cannot be a ground to adopt the multiplier of 11 and, therefore, the multiplier of 17 adopted by the Tribunal is legal, correct and proper. He further argued that the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is also correct and no interference is required to be made with the impugned judgment and award. Finally, he prayed for dismissal of the Appeal with costs. 4. He further argued that the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is also correct and no interference is required to be made with the impugned judgment and award. Finally, he prayed for dismissal of the Appeal with costs. 4. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order. I have also heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and seen the evidence. Following points arise for my for consideration:- (A) Whether the Tribunal committed an error in calculating the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/-per month.. No. (B) Whether the Tribunal committed an error in adopting multiplier of 17 in place of 11? Yes (C) Whether the Tribunal committed an error in not deducting 50 % of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, he being an unmarried? Yes (D) Whether the Tribunal committed an error in awarding 9% interest per annum, that too from the date of filing the petition i.e., 11.11.1997? Yes, rate of interest should have been @7.5 % from 11.11.1997 5. As to Point No.(A): Shriram, the deceased was a Driver on a Jeep and was earning in that capacity, is not in dispute. The dispute was raised about his monthly income. His age was 21 years. Looking to the fact that by growing age, he would have earned more and more, and the Tribunal having applied its mind by approximation, that minimum Rs. 2,000/-per month would be earned by him, I do not find any fault with the finding arrived at by the Tribunal that his annual income was Rs.24,000/-per annum, working as a Driver on a Jeep; so also having regard to the future chances of increase in his income for himself and his parents. 6. As to Point No.(B): In the case of death of an unmarried person, it is a trite law that the multiplier cannot be considered in the light of the age of unmarried deceased person. The Tribunal, however, considered the multiplier of 17 considering the age of the deceased i.e. 21 years, ignoring the fact that he was an unmarried person. Therefore, the multiplier ought to have applied on the basis of the ages of the parents of the deceased, which comes to 11, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. The Tribunal, however, considered the multiplier of 17 considering the age of the deceased i.e. 21 years, ignoring the fact that he was an unmarried person. Therefore, the multiplier ought to have applied on the basis of the ages of the parents of the deceased, which comes to 11, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. Hence I find fault with the finding recorded by the Tribunal in adopting multiplier of 17 in place of multiplier of 11. 7. As to Point No.(C): The Tribunal held Rs. 24,000/-to be the annual income of the deceased. It is again a trite law that in respect of unmarried person, the personal expenses are to be deducted to the extent of 50 %. In the instant case, however, the Tribunal did not deduct amount towards personal expenses but straightway considered Rs. 24,000/-as dependency, which is wholly wrong. The Tribunal ought to have deducted 50 % of his income from the annual income which comes to Rs.12,000/-per year since the deceased was an unmarried person. Hence I hold that the dependency was required to be calculated in the factual background at Rs.12,000/-per year. 8. As to Point No.(D) : The Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 9 % per annum. In my opinion, the said finding is wrong because the settled legal position is that the rate of interest should be awarded at 7.5% and not 9% and, therefore, I am inclined to modify the rate of interest and hold that the claimants are entitled to the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, with effect from 11.11.1997 i.e. date of the Claim Petition. 9. In view of the above discussion, I take the annual dependency of the parents of the deceased at Rs. 12,000/-per annum ; multiplier of 11, then the amount of compensation comes to Rs.1,32,000/-. This amount shall carry rate of interest @ 7.5% with effect from 11.11.1997 with proportionate costs. Hence I make the following order : ORDER (i) First Appeal No.246/2003 is partly allowed, with proportionate costs. (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 13.6.2002 passed by the learned member, MACT Nagpur is modified. (a) The appellant as well as respondent no.7 are jointly held liable to make payment of Rs.1,32,000/-to the claimants/respondents 1 to 6 with 7.5% interest from 11.11.1997. (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 13.6.2002 passed by the learned member, MACT Nagpur is modified. (a) The appellant as well as respondent no.7 are jointly held liable to make payment of Rs.1,32,000/-to the claimants/respondents 1 to 6 with 7.5% interest from 11.11.1997. (b) It is clarified that whatever payments have been made shall be adjusted in the final award to be drawn as per this judgment. (c) Award be drawn up accordingly. (d) After all accounts are settled, the amount to which the appellant is entitled shall be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company.