JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. - The Petitioner-claimants being the Appellants have filed this appeal assailing the award dated 29.04.2004 passed by the M.A.G.T.-I, Balasore in Claim Misc. Case No. 148 of 2002 in an application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 42 lakhs on account of the death of Sitanath Dikshit in a vehicular accident on 30.07.2002 at 7 p.m. The short fact of the case, in hand, is that Sitanath Dikshit, husband of the Appellant No. 1, father of Appellant Nos. 2 to 4 & son of the Appellant No. 5 & 6 died in a motor accident on 30.07.2002. It is stated that on that day at about 7 P.M. the offending truck bearing registration No. AP 47U-9459 came in a high speed & dashed against the deceased as a result of which he died at the spot. At the time of death, Sitanath, Dikshit was about 46 years of old & was working as an Assistant Manager in United Commercial Bank, Bhadrak Branch & was getting salary of Rs. 17,533.66 per month. The claimants were fully dependent on the deceased & accordingly the claimants filed the claim application claiming compensation of Rs. 42,00,000. 2. On being noticed, the Respondent No. 1, owner of the vehicle did not appear & remained ex-parte whereas the Respondent No. 2-Insurance Company entered appearance & filed its written statement denying the claim made in the claim application & also disputing the accident & income of the deceased but admitting the fact that on the date of accident the offending truck had a valid insurance. 3. Considering the contention of the parties, the Learned Tribunal framed as many as four issues. The claimants-Petitioners examined two witnesses including claimant No. 1 as P.W. 1 & exhibited certain documents. The claimant-P.W. 1 proved the salary certificate of the deceased from January, 2002 to July, 2002 as Ext. 3 & Ext. 3A & the entries therein with regard to month of July. The Insurance Company-Respondent No. 2 proved Ext. A, the salary certificate issued by the Senior Manager of the UCO Bank of Bhadrak Branch for the month of July, 2002 but has not examined any witness from its side. 4. After hearing the parties, Learned Tribunal passed the Judgment on 29.04.2004 by awarding Rs. The Insurance Company-Respondent No. 2 proved Ext. A, the salary certificate issued by the Senior Manager of the UCO Bank of Bhadrak Branch for the month of July, 2002 but has not examined any witness from its side. 4. After hearing the parties, Learned Tribunal passed the Judgment on 29.04.2004 by awarding Rs. 8 lakhs in total in favour of the claimants with the finding that the deceased expired in a motor accident caused by offending vehicle due to the negligence of the driver. As such the claimants are entitled to compensation. The deceased was aged about 47 years on the date of accident & was drawing salary of Rs. 17,533.66 per month but he was getting a net salary of Rs. 7,557.56 after deduction of Insurance, Provident Fund Loan, Festival advance, Vehicle advance, Housing Loan, flood loan & different taxes totaling to Rs. 10,024.10. The contribution of the deceased to his family was Rs. 5,000 out of the net salary of Rs. 7,557.56. Hence, applying suitable multiplier of 11 for calculation of the total compensation payable, the amount was determined at Rs. 8,00,000, which the present claimants dispute. Therefore the claimant-Appellants have filed this appeal claiming enhancement of compensation. 5. Mr. B. Baug, Learned Counsel for the claimant-Appellants strenuously urged that the determination of net salary of Rs. 7557.56 of the deceased is not justified inasmuch as while calculating the net salary of the deceased, payments made towards insurance provident fund loan, festival advance, vehicle loan, housing loan & flood loan etc. cannot be deducted. It is stated that statutory deductions of taxes like income tax & professional tax are to be made but no deduction should be made towards the personal loan of the deceased. It is further urged that under no circumstances the net salary of the deceased can be less than Rs. 16,923.66 & as such as per the calculation of the Learned Claims Tribunal 2/3rd thereof would be worked out to Rs. 11,282 & basing on this, the Learned Tribunal should have calculated the compensation to be awarded to the Appellants. On the aforesaid basis, the annual contribution of the deceased to his family would have been calculated at Rs. 1,35,384 & consequently applying the multiplier 11, the total compensation would have been calculated at Rs. 14,89,224 instead of Rs. 7,70,000. In support of his contention Mr. On the aforesaid basis, the annual contribution of the deceased to his family would have been calculated at Rs. 1,35,384 & consequently applying the multiplier 11, the total compensation would have been calculated at Rs. 14,89,224 instead of Rs. 7,70,000. In support of his contention Mr. Baug relied upon the Judgments of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, Shyamwati Sharma & Ors. V. Karam Singh & Ors., 2010 AIR SCW 4391; Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan 2013 AIR SCW 3120; Puttamma and Others Vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and Another. During pendency of the appeal, Kapila Dikshit, Appellant No. 5, the father of the deceased, Sitanath Dikshit expired on 31.08.2009 & the legal heirs are already on record & his name has been expunged from the case record vide Order Dated 10.01.2014. 6. Smt. Prativa Mishra, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2-Insurance Company argued with vehemence that the claimants are not entitled to get any enhancement of the claim & supported the award passed by the Learned M.A.C.T-I, Balasore in Claim Misc. Case No. 148 of 2002 & stated that while determining the compensation amount, the Learned Tribunal has not committed any error apparent on the face of record. Therefore, this Court should not interfere with the said award. In support of her contention, she has placed reliance on the Judgment, of the Apex Court in Asha & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2004 ACJ 448 . 7. Considering the above mentioned contentions raised by the parties & after perusing the records & going through the impugned award, it is found that Sitanath Dikshit was working as Assistant Manager in UCO Bank, Bhadrak Branch, Bhadrak & died due to vehicular accident on 31.08.2009. The claimant-Appellants, who were depending upon the deceased, are suffering a lot & more so, the offending vehicle had got valid insurance & considering these facts, Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 8,00,000 as compensation. Even though all these facts as mentioned above, are admitted, the claimant-Appellants are disputing the determination of quantum of compensation for which the present appeal has been filed. 8. Learned Tribunal while determining the compensation took into consideration Ext-A, the salary certificate granted by the competent authority wherefrom it is found that the deceased, soon before his-death, was getting Rs. Even though all these facts as mentioned above, are admitted, the claimant-Appellants are disputing the determination of quantum of compensation for which the present appeal has been filed. 8. Learned Tribunal while determining the compensation took into consideration Ext-A, the salary certificate granted by the competent authority wherefrom it is found that the deceased, soon before his-death, was getting Rs. 17,573.66 per month & deductions on different heads, such as insurance, provident fund loan, festival advance, vehicle advance, housing loan, different taxes & flood loan etc., totaling Rs. 10,024.10 were being made from the gross salary, & the deceased, therefore, was getting a net salary of Rs. 7,337.56 per month. In Smt. Sarala Verma & other (supra), the Apex Court laid down a guideline while considering Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for determination of compensation & steps to be followed by the Tribunal, which are as follows:- "To have uniformity & consistency, Tribunals should determine compensation in case of death, by the following well settled steps; Step-1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal & living expenses. The balance which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand. Step-2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age-of the deceased & period of active career the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderable in life & economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by Supreme Court. The multiplier should be chose from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased. Step-3 (Actual calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family. Therefore, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 10,000 may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased. Therefore, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 10,000 may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased. The funeral "expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) & cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also added." In para. 11 of the said Judgment, it is further held that the addition to income for future prospect has to be taken into consideration. Since the deceased was having permanent job & was at the age of 47 years, therefore, addition of 50% of actual salary should have been made to income of the deceased towards future prospects & determination of such future prospect has been considered in para. 11, which as follows: "50% of actual salary should be added to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job & was below 40 years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words 'actual salary' should be read as actual salary less tax. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in fare & exceptional cases involving special circumstances." Thereafter deduction for personal leaving expenses has to be taken into consideration. If the deceased is married that should be one third as has been held in para. A departure therefrom should be made only in fare & exceptional cases involving special circumstances." Thereafter deduction for personal leaving expenses has to be taken into consideration. If the deceased is married that should be one third as has been held in para. 15 of the said Judgment, which is as follows; "Where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal & living expense of the deceased, should be one third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family member is 4 to 6, & one fifth (175th ) where the number of dependent family members exceed six. Where the deceased was a bachelor & the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to the bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal & living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parents & siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income & will not be considered as a dependent & the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers & sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent & earning, or married or be dependent on the father. Thus, even if the deceased is survived by parents & siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent & 50% would be treated as the personal & living expenses of the bachelor & 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large & dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he had a widowed mother & large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal & living expenses may be restricted to one-third & contribution to the family will be taken as two-third." Therefore, taking into consideration the above parameters, now the selection of multiplier has to be made & the thereafter the subsequent computation has to be determined following the said procedure. In Shyamawati Sharma & others (supra) the Apex Court has only directed for deduction of taxes if the salary of the deceased is within the taxable range, then 30% has to be deducted towards taxes & further clarified that the deduction made towards GPF, life insurance premium, re-payments of loans etc. would not be excluded from income. Applying this principle, taxes are to be deducted as the salary of the deceased, is within the taxable range. 9. So far as the applicability of multiplier method is concerned, the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari & others (supra) held that multiplier method must be followed even in the claim made under Section 166 of the MV Act. In Puttamma & others (supra) the Apex Court has held that as per decision in Sarala Verma (supra) the deduction towards personal living expenses of the deceased should be 1/3rd where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3; one fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family is 4 to 6 & one fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds 6. Therefore, in the present context, deduction from salary towards personal & living expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th & the additional entitlement should be considered @ 30% of the gross salary per month. Since the age of the deceased was 47 years at the time of accident as per Ext. 4, as per Schedule II of the M.V. Act, the correct multiplier should be 13 in stead of 11.9 % interest per annum has been awarded by the Learned Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim application till realization. Accordingly, the compensation has been calculated in the manner indicated below: 10. In view of the calculation made above by following the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarala Verma (supra) & Shyamawati Sharma & others (supra) the just compensation after all adjustments is determined at Rs. 17,61,316.00 & as such, there is no rebuttal claim made on behalf of the Insurance Company refuting such claim. The Judgment in Asha & others (supra) relied upon on behalf of the Insurance Company has been considered in Smt. Sarla Verma (supra), wherein principles regarding determination of quantum have been laid down. 17,61,316.00 & as such, there is no rebuttal claim made on behalf of the Insurance Company refuting such claim. The Judgment in Asha & others (supra) relied upon on behalf of the Insurance Company has been considered in Smt. Sarla Verma (supra), wherein principles regarding determination of quantum have been laid down. Following the said principles, since the age of the deceased was 47 years at the time of accident, compensation has been determined by applying 13 multiplier & it is herd that the claimants-Appellants are entitled to get compensation of Rs. 25,61,316 along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application i.e. with effect from 26.8.2002 till the date of realization. Out of the said amount since the Insurance Company has already paid Rs. 8,00,000, the balance amount of Rs. 17,61,316 with proportionate interest shall be paid to the claimants in the same proportion (except Respondent No. 6, who died in the meantime) as directed by the Learned Tribunal within a period of 6 weeks hence. With the aforesaid observation & direction, the appeal is allowed in part.