JUDGMENT : Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is at the instance of the claimants and is directed against an award dated 5th July 2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) at Dahod in Motor Accident Claims Petition (New) No.415 of 2004 (Old Motor Accident Claims Petition No.562 of 1992), by which the tribunal awarded a sum of L 2,47,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim application till realization. 2. Being dissatisfied, the claimants have come up with the present appeal. 3. It appears that neither the insurance company nor the owner of the offending vehicle has preferred any separate appeal or cross objection disputing the amount. Therefore, there is no dispute about the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and liability of the insurance company. 4. The only question that is required to be adjudicated in this appeal is as regards the quantum of compensation. 5. According to the claim application, the victim was aged 27 years at the time of the accident, having wife, two children and mother. According to the claimants, the victim used to earn L 3,000/- a month from the agricultural activity and tailoring work. The tribunal below has, however, not accepted the said figure to be a correct one and, according to the tribunal, it should be treated as L 1,200/- a month. For the purpose of considering the future prospect, the tribunal added to L 1,200/- a further amount of L 2,400/- and thereafter divided the same by two for arriving at the figure of L 1,800/-. Thereafter, ?rd was deducted and by application of multiplier of 16 arrived at the figure of L 2,30,400/-. Over and above that amount, the tribunal added further amount of L 17,000/- as conventional amount to arrive at a figure of L 2,47,400/-. 6. After hearing Ms. Kapadia, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Thereafter, ?rd was deducted and by application of multiplier of 16 arrived at the figure of L 2,30,400/-. Over and above that amount, the tribunal added further amount of L 17,000/- as conventional amount to arrive at a figure of L 2,47,400/-. 6. After hearing Ms. Kapadia, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Nanavati, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurance company, I find that even if I propose to apply the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 having regard to the fact that there are four dependents, ¼th should be deducted from the amount of income of L 1,800/-, which will come to L 1,350/- and appropriate multiplier should be 17 in view of the age of the victim and, thus, the amount of compensation will come to L 2,75,400/- instead of L 2,30,400/- awarded by the tribunal below. 7. As regards the conventional amount, my attention has been drawn to the latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh and Others v. Rajbir Singh and Others reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC), and it has been contended that in view of the said decision, the conventional amount as held in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) is no longer a good law. My attention has also been drawn to the fact that a decision of two Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company v. Pushpa and Others in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.8058 of 2014 dated 7th July 2014, wherein the said Division Bench has not agreed with the view taken in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (supra) and has referred the matter to Larger Bench. 8. After taking into consideration the fact that in the case of Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (supra) the accident occurred in the year 2007 whereas in this case the accident occurred in 1991, I propose to add a sum of L 50,000/- towards conventional amount. Thus, the total figure will come to L 3,25,400/-. 8. After taking into consideration the fact that in the case of Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (supra) the accident occurred in the year 2007 whereas in this case the accident occurred in 1991, I propose to add a sum of L 50,000/- towards conventional amount. Thus, the total figure will come to L 3,25,400/-. Having regard to the fact that the accident occurred in the year 1991, in my view, interest should be paid at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till 31st December 1999 and at the rate of 9% p.a. from 1st January 2000 till actual realization. The insurance company is directed to pay the balance amount within two months from today. 9. The appeal is, thus, disposed. No order as to costs. The lower Court record be sent back immediately. Appeal Allowed.