JUDGMENT Mr. Bhowmick, appearing for the Insurance Company has raised an interesting question of law; otherwise the appeal has its usual grievance of the appellants, the victim’s income was not properly considered. 2. The facts would depict, victim a leaseholder, carrying on business of pisciculture, died in the accident. The claimants claimed, he was earning Rs. 3,300/- per month. The accident took place in 2007. 3. Mr. Krishanu Banik, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants would contend, the Tribunal should have accepted the assertion, irrespective of evidence that was led, following the decision in the case of Laxmi Devi and Others vs. Mohammad Tabbar and Another, reported in 2008 ACJ 1488 (SC). 4. Per contra, Mr. Saibalendu Bhowmick, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, would contend, the accident occurred in 2007, whereas the decision in the case of Laxmi Devi (Supra) rendered in 2008 would have a prospective effect, hence such decision would have no role to play. To support his contention, he would rely upon the Apex Court Decision in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors., reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 . 5. In the case of Karunakar (Supra) the question arose, whether the Union of India Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khand, reported in (1991) 16 ATC 505 case would have a retrospective application in cases where disciplinary proceedings were held prior to the delivery of the judgment. Karunakar (Supra) made it clear, it would have a prospective effect. It would have logic. Ramjan Khan (Supra) observed, denial of an enquiry report in a disciplinary proceeding would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. Such decision was rendered in 2008. If it would have a retrospective application it would nullify many disciplinary proceeding, which were held in good faith and there was no provision for supplying copy of the enquiry report. 6. The case before us did not happen contemplating any decision that would be rendered by the Apex Court subsequently. The effect of the accident was immediate giving rise to a cause of action to the claimants to make a claim against the offending party or his insurer. The Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Devi (Supra) considered a case under Section 166, where there was no straitjacket formula to assess accidental compensation. The effect of the accident was immediate giving rise to a cause of action to the claimants to make a claim against the offending party or his insurer. The Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Devi (Supra) considered a case under Section 166, where there was no straitjacket formula to assess accidental compensation. The Apex Court felt, it would be travesty of justice if the 2nd Schedule to the provisions of Section 163A that was introduced in 1994 was applied mechanically. The Apex Court took judicial notice, in 2004 an unskilled labour would at least earn a sum of Rs. 100/- per day. Applying such logic, the Apex Court modified the award, however, reduced the multiplier that was mechanically applied as per 2nd Schedule. Section 166 has given wide scope to the Tribunal to assess compensation considering the facts involved in a particular case. While doing so, the Apex Court took judicial notice and observed as referred to above. 7. Relying on the said decision Mr. Banik would contend, if the claimants evidence as to income, was not to the satisfaction of the Tribunal, the minimum wage that the Supreme Court took judicial notice, should play dominant role to decide the issue. The Accident took place in 2007; hence the assertion to the extent of Rs. 3,300/- could not be said to be unreasonable. We are inclined to accept the assertion. 8. The appeal thus, succeeds in part. The award is modified to the extent, the income of the victim should be assessed at Rs. 3,300/- instead of Rs. 2,000/- as assessed by the Tribunal. Significant to note, while assessing the income at Rs. 2,000/- per month, the Tribunal did not assign any cogent reason. When we are relying upon the Apex Court decision in the case of Laxmi Devi (Supra) ordinarily we should reduce the multiplier. We are told, the victim left five dependents. It would be too harsh to reduce the multiplier particularly when we do not wish to interfere with the deduction of 1/3rd on account of personal expenses. 9. The award is modified as follows :- Monthly Income = Rs. 3,300/- Yearly Income (3300 x 12) =Rs. 39,600/- Less: 1/3rd deduction =Rs. 13,200/- =Rs. 26,400/- Using Multiplier of 15, =Rs. 3,66,000/- (Rs. 26,400 x 15) the assessment would be Add: Statutory Compensation =Rs. 9,500/- =Rs. 3,75,500/- Less. Already Paid =Rs. 9. The award is modified as follows :- Monthly Income = Rs. 3,300/- Yearly Income (3300 x 12) =Rs. 39,600/- Less: 1/3rd deduction =Rs. 13,200/- =Rs. 26,400/- Using Multiplier of 15, =Rs. 3,66,000/- (Rs. 26,400 x 15) the assessment would be Add: Statutory Compensation =Rs. 9,500/- =Rs. 3,75,500/- Less. Already Paid =Rs. 2,49,500/- The award would be =Rs. 1,26,000/- 10. The award would carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum on and from the date of filing of claim petition until it was actually deposited and/or paid. The differential awarded sum would also carry interest at the same rate from the date of filing of the claim petition till the payment is made. 11. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the differential awarded sum as well as the interest, to the respective claimants in the same proportion as directed by the Tribunal through account payee cheques to be sent at the recorded address by speed post. Such payment must reach the claimants within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. 12. The judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. 13. The appeal along with the application for expeditious disposal is disposed of without any order as to costs. 14. The Registry is directed to send down the records at once, if received by this time.