JUDGMENT : JAYANT PATEL, J. 1. Leave to delete respondents No. 1 and 2, driver and owner, since it has been stated by Mr. Nanavati that he is pressing only the question of quantum in the present appeal. 2. Admit. Mr. Mausim Hakim, learned counsel appears for the original claimants and waives notice of admission. 3. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for both the sides, the appeal is finally heard. 4. The short facts of the case are that on 06.11.2010 at 6.30 pm, deceased Rahemsinghbhai was going on Government motorcycle for investigation towards Bhadarva. At that time, when he reached near bus station of village Dabhed, one truck bearing No. GJ1-BV-3301, dashed with the motorcycle and the deceased sustained serious injuries and ultimately, he succumbed to the injuries. The claim petition was filed by the dependent members of the family of the deceased for compensation of Rs.50 lakhs before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, at the conclusion of the appeal, awarded compensation at Rs.33,85,000 with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. with the further direction that if the amount is not deposited within 30 days, the interest shall be payable at 9% p. a. It is under these circumstances, the present appeal before this Court. 5. We have heard Mr. Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Hakim for the respondents-original claimants. 6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the prospective income considered by the Tribunal is erroneous inasmuch as the Tribunal could not asses the prospective income to the extent of 100% by doubling the existing income. In his submission, as per the decision of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , at the most, the Tribunal could consider 50% towards prospective income and he further substantiated the submission by relying upon the another decision of the Apex Court in the case of K.R. Madhusudhan v. Administrative Officer and others reported in (2011) 4 SCC 689 and more particularly the observations made at paras 8 and 9 whereby it was observed that in only rare and exceptional cases, the departure can be made from the principles made out in Sarla Verma by the Apex Court. It was submitted that if the prospective income is considered as 50% than existing, the quantum of compensation would be substantially less in comparison to the award passed by the Tribunal and therefore, this Court may consider the same in the appeal. 7. Whereas, Mr. Hakim, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-original claimants is unable to show any evidence produced on record on behalf of the claimants that the income of the deceased for the same cadre was doubled by revision of any pay-scale or otherwise. Only two evidence have been brought to our notice, one is the salary slip showing that the deceased was having salary on the date of the accident of Rs.15,227/-, exhibit 57 and another is the evidence on behalf of the claimants at exhibit 33, wherein the officer was examined and he has stated that if the deceased would have continued, he could have been promoted and the salary of the Head Constable was Rs.24,055/- and of ASI was Rs.24,555/-. However, Mr. Hakim is not in a position to dispute the proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the above referred two decisions in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and K.R. Madhusudhan (supra). 8. In our view, the evidence at exhibit 33 can not be considered as a valid ground for 100% rise in the prospective income and the reason being that the so called statement of the witness is on the premise that had the deceased continued in service, he could have been promoted to the post of Head Constable and ASI. The criteria for the promotion are not brought on record nor it can be said that mere continuity in service would automatically result into promotion of any employee. It depends upon the merit, seniority, etc., which are all dependent upon the performance while on duty. Therefore, it can be said that the statement of the said witness was on hypothesis. Had there been any specific evidence brought on record showing that by mere continuation in service, the salary would have been doubled or otherwise, the matter might stand on different footing and different consideration, but such evidence was not brought on record. Therefore, it can be said that the statement of the said witness was on hypothesis. Had there been any specific evidence brought on record showing that by mere continuation in service, the salary would have been doubled or otherwise, the matter might stand on different footing and different consideration, but such evidence was not brought on record. Under these circumstances, the only evidence which could be validly considered by the Tribunal was the salary slip at exhibit 57 and since the deceased was Government servant, at the most, full benefit to the extent of 50% of the prospective income may be available irrespective of his age and the span of service. If the said aspect is considered, we find that at the most, the Tribunal could consider 50% of the income towards prospective income and thereby, the amount would come to Rs.22,500/- p.m. and not Rs.30,000/- p.m. as considered by the Tribunal. Out of the aforesaid amount, as per the settled legal position observed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), since the claimants were between 4-6, the deduction would be ¼th and not ?rd as observed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, ¼th of the amount would come to Rs.5,625/- p.a. towards personal expenses and if deducted from 22,500, the net amount would come to Rs.16,875/- per month and yearly, it would come to Rs.2,02,500/-. The multiplier applied by the Tribunal is of 14 to which we are not inclined to interfere and consequently, the total amount of compensation would come to Rs.28,35,000/- as against 33,60,000/- as ordered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards conventional amount to which, we are not inclined to interfere and accordingly, the total amount of compensation would come to Rs.28,60,000 and not Rs.33,85,000/-. Under the circumstances, the award passed by the Tribunal deserves to be modified to that extent. 9. There is considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal ought not have awarded penal interest in the event there is failure to deposit the amount as per the direction No. 3 of the operative portion of the order. We find that such even otherwise also such direction cannot be maintained in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur and Ors. reported in 2004(2) SCC 370 . We find that such even otherwise also such direction cannot be maintained in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur and Ors. reported in 2004(2) SCC 370 . Hence, that part of the direction of the Tribunal cannot be maintained. 10. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal for awarding compensation exceeding the amount of Rs.28,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. is set aside. It is observed and held that the original claimants shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.28,60,000/-. Additionally, they would be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition and the proportionate cost thereon. The direction issued by the Tribunal for penal interest at the rate of 9% p.a. in the event the amount is not deposited is quashed and set(aside.(The other directions issued by the Tribunal are not interfered with. 11. The Tribunal has not passed any order for withdrawal and investment. Considering the facts and circumstances, in all here are 5 claimants, out of which, one is major and the others are minor. Therefore, the total amount of compensation shall be divided into two parts, one will be the share on the widow to the extent of 30% and the rest 70% shall be divided into four parts for each of the minor claimants. Out of(the amount of 30%, being the share of the widow, 30% shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the original claimant and 70% of the amount shall be invested in the fixed deposit receipt for a period of five years with the condition that the original claimant concerned, i.e., the widow, shall be entitled to the interest as and when it becomes due on such investment. The rest of the amount forming part of share of each of the minor shall be invested with the nationalised bank for a period of five years and such investment shall be renewed from time to time until the claimants concerned become major and with the condition that the guardian of the minor Meeraben would be entitled to withdraw periodical interest on such investment as and when it becomes due. It is also observed that upon attaining majority, the minors will be in a position to move the Tribunal for encashment of the amount, if any valid reason is shown but such will be in no case prior to the expiry of 5 years from the daum of initial investment. 12. Mr. Nanavati for the appellant has stated that the total amount of compensation together with the cost and interest shall be deposited within six weeks from today. Hence, we also observe that the said amount shall be deposited as declared before the Court. 13. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Appeal Allowed.