JUDGMENT : Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is at the instance of the New India Assurance Company Limited and is directed against the award dated 24th October, 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Main), Surendrangar in M.A.C.P.No.839 of 1996 thereby disposing of the application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by awarding a sum of Rs.8,06,940/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application till realization. 2. Being dissatisfied, the insurance company has come up with the present appeal. 3. It may not be out of place to mention here that the claimants have neither filed any separate appeal nor any cross objection in this appeal filed by the insurance company, although in the original claim application, they claimed Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation. 4. There is no dispute that the victim who was a Head Master of Primary School, while travelling on a bicycle, met with an accident with a dumper, resulting in death. 5. According to the claimants, the driver of the tempo was solely responsible for the accident. 6. At the time of hearing, the widow of the claimants and an employee of the education department gave evidence showing the actual salary of the victim as well as the salary of the victim which he would have received at the age of 58 years, on the basis of existing pay scale, on attaining the age of superannuation. 7. It appears from the record that at the time of accident, the victim used to get Rs.6155/- a month and would have received Rs.10,800/- a month, if he would have retired on attaining the age of superannuation. 8. The Tribunal below for the purpose of assessing the future prospect added Rs.6000/- + Rs.10,800 = Rs.16,800/- and then deducting the same by two, arrived at a figure of Rs.8400/- as a prospective average income for the purpose of determining the future loss of income. The victim was aged 52 years and that six years service was left, the Tribunal decided to apply multiplier of 13 and after deducting ?rd towards personal expenditure ( Rs.2800/-), the total amount came to Rs.8,73,600/- ( Rs.5600/- x 12 x 13) as dependency loss. The victim was aged 52 years and that six years service was left, the Tribunal decided to apply multiplier of 13 and after deducting ?rd towards personal expenditure ( Rs.2800/-), the total amount came to Rs.8,73,600/- ( Rs.5600/- x 12 x 13) as dependency loss. In addition to that, a further sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded for conventional / consortium, Rs.3000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of expectation of life. Thus, the total amount came to Rs.8,96,600/-. However, the Tribunal found 10% negligence on the part of the victim and therefore, by way of contributory negligence a sum of Rs.89,660/- was deducted and according to the Tribunal the claimants should be entitled to get Rs.8,06,940/- as compensation. 9. Mr. Parikh, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has first contended that there was no justification of applying multiplier of 13, when the victim was aged 52 years and within six years, he would have retired. Mr. Parikh pointed out that according to the decision of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the applicable multiplier for the deceased aged 52 years is 11. Mr.Parikh next contended that the fixation of mean amount of Rs.8400/- was also not proper as Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) has stated that there should not be any addition for prospective income if the victim is above 50 years of age. Mr. Parikh, therefore, prays for reduction of amount of compensation. 10. Ms. Ajmera, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the claimants has on the other hand opposed the aforesaid contentions of Mr. Parikh and has contended that having regard to the latest trend maintained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for compensating the amount for pain, shock and suffering, the amount should be more than the one given by the Tribunal. She further contends that for the loss of consortium, even the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made payment of Rs.1,00,000/-. At any rate Ms.Ajmera submits that in the fact of the present case, even there was no justification of deducting 10% negligence on the part of the victim in absence of any specific evidence of negligence. She, therefore, prays for maintaining the award. 11. At any rate Ms.Ajmera submits that in the fact of the present case, even there was no justification of deducting 10% negligence on the part of the victim in absence of any specific evidence of negligence. She, therefore, prays for maintaining the award. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, I find that in the present case, the victim being a Head Master his scale of pay has been proved and the actual salary payable to him at the time of death as well as at the time of superannuation, even on the basis of present existing scale has been well proved by documentary evidence on record. In such circumstances, the approach of the Tribunal that the mean average prospective income should be Rs.8400/- cannot be said to be unreasonable when the evidence has come on record regarding the actual salary payable to the victim at the time of retirement. 12. I, however, find substance in the contention of Mr.Parikh that for the death of victim aged 52 years, in the present case, who was in service and going to retire within a period of six years, the Tribunal should not have awarded multiplier based on average prospective income. I, therefore, propose to follow the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) by applying it at the rate of 11. 13. As regards 10% negligence, I find that having regard to the specific evidence given by the driver of the dumper that there was no head-on- collision, there is no reason for interfering with the percentage of negligence. However, having regard to the fact that after being seriously injured the victim was alive for 16 hours, the amount given towards consortium or conventional cannot be supported and it should be Rs.30,000/-. I do not disburse other expenses given by the Tribunal below. 14. I, however, find substance in the contention of Ms. Ajmera, that the victim having left four dependents, instead of deducting ?rd, ¼th of the income should have been deducted. 15. Thus, the calculation towards future loss of income should be made in the following way 16. I do not disburse other expenses given by the Tribunal below. 14. I, however, find substance in the contention of Ms. Ajmera, that the victim having left four dependents, instead of deducting ?rd, ¼th of the income should have been deducted. 15. Thus, the calculation towards future loss of income should be made in the following way 16. Prospective income Rs.8400/- and deducting ¼th out of the said amount ( Rs.2100/-), the figure comes to Rs.6300/- and applying multiplier of 11, the total figure comes to Rs.8,31,600/- towards future loss of income. Rs.30,000/- should be added to the aforesaid amount towards pain, shock and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards consortium and conventional, Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards expectation of life. Thus, the total figure comes to Rs.8,84,600/-. 17. In view of finding of 10% negligence on the part of the victim, the amount of Rs.8,84,600/- should be reduced to Rs.7,96,140/- ( Rs.8,84,600/- minus Rs.88,460/-). Thus, the total amount of compensation should be Rs.7,96,140/-. 18. I, thus, award Rs.7,96,140/- as compensation instead of Rs.8,06,940/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, there is reduction of Rs.10,800/- ( Rs.8,06,940/- minus Rs.7,96,140/-) 19. The appeal is partly allowed. The Tribunal is directed to refund the amount of Rs.10,800/- with proportionate interest accrued thereon in favour of the Insurance Company and the balance amount be released in favour of the claimants. Appeal partly allowed.