JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 173 of the Motors Vehicle Act, 1988, has been preferred challenging the judgment and award dated 13.12.2011 passed by the learned MAC Tribunal, Goalpara, in MAC Case No.31 of 2006. The claimant has preferred this appeal praying for enhancement of the compensation amount on various grounds. 2. Smt. Charkish Bala Rabha as claimant instituted the aforesaid MAC case in the Court of learned MAC Tribunal at Goalpara stating that her husband was a retired master roll employee in the office of the Executive Engineer, P.W.D.(roads), Goalpara. While he was coming towards his house at Goalpara by bi-cycle on 02.09.2005, the offending truck bearing registration No. AS18/2914 came in rash and negligent manner with excessive speed and knocked him down at about 10 A.M. near Kumarpara Villaga Chawk causing grievous injuries on his right leg and head. The bi-cycle was also damaged and the injured was taken to Goalpara Civil Hospital where he died because of the injuries. He was drawing a pension of Rs.3,500/- per month at the time of the accident and was also making some income from vegetable vending and accordingly, his total monthly income was Rs.6,000/- per month and at the time of his death he was 59 years of age. So, she claimed for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. 3. All the opposite parties appeared and submitted their written statement. While the opposite party No.1 Insurance Company denied liability of making payment, the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 who are owner and driver of the vehicle also denied that there was any rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. However, it was disclosed that at the time of accident the vehicle was covered by valid insurance policy under opposite party No.1 and the insurance was valid upto 05.09.2006. Upon such rival contention of the parties the learned trial court framed as many as 3 (three) issues as follows: “(i) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Vehicle No.AS 18/2914 or the accident occurred arising out of use of the said vehicle? (ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation, if so, what should be the just compensation? (iii) Whether the Insurance Company or the owner is liable to pay the compensation?” 4. The Claimant examined 2 (two) witnesses but the opposite parties did not adduce any evidence. (ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation, if so, what should be the just compensation? (iii) Whether the Insurance Company or the owner is liable to pay the compensation?” 4. The Claimant examined 2 (two) witnesses but the opposite parties did not adduce any evidence. However, the witnesses of the claimant were duly cross-examined by the opposite parties. 5. The learned tribunal after consideration of the materials available on records held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Coming to the question of just compensation, the learned tribunal considered the Pension Payment Order (Exhibit-6) and held that the deceased was drawing pension of Rs.1,225/- at the time of accident. He was found to be 59 years of age at that time. Deducting 1/3rd (one third) of the said amount as his personal expenses, loss of dependency was calculated at Rs.817/- and thus, the loss of annual dependency was assessed to be Rs.817 X 12=Rs.9804/- only. By using multiplier of 8, the just compensation was computed at Rs.78,432/-. To this Rs.5,000/- each was added towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses and thus, the compensation amount was finally found to be Rs.88,432/- and the Insurance Company was directed to make the payment with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 6. I have heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the appellant. I have also heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. A. Rashid, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 7. Mr. H. Das argues that as per Exhibit-6 PPO the pension drawn by the deceased was not Rs.1225/- but it was Rs.2,298/-. Drawing attention of the Court to page-7 of the PPO in original, he shows that the basic pension was Rs.1,225/-, medical allowance was Rs.350/- and Dearness allowance was Rs.723/-. Thus, the total pension amount was Rs.2298/-. According to Mr. Das the loss of dependency was thus wrongly calculated by the learned tribunal and multiplier was also not correctly chosen. Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the Insurance Company in his usual fairness submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarala Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 the appropriate multiplier would be 9 and not 8. Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the Insurance Company in his usual fairness submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarala Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 the appropriate multiplier would be 9 and not 8. I have perused Exhibit-6 PPO in original. It appears that the basic pension was Rs.1225/- but along with medical allowance and DA the total pension drawn by the deceased at the time of his death was Rs.2,298/-. In that view of the matter, loss of dependency is required to be re-calculated. Deducting 1/3rd (one third) of the total pension drawn by the deceased the dependency is Rs.1,532/- per month. If multiplier 9 is used in that event the total loss of dependency would be Rs.1532X9X12=Rs.1,65,456/-. The claimant is also entitled to enhancement on the count of funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate. On each count if Rs.10,000/- is added in that event compensation would be as follows: Total Loss of Dependency :Rs.1,65,456/- Funeral Expenses :Rs.10,000/- Loss of consortium :Rs.10,000/- Loss of estate :Rs.10,000/- Total :Rs.1,95,456/- So, the claimant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.1,95,456/-. It is submitted that the Insurance Company has already paid Rs.88,432/- to the claimant as per the order passed by the learned tribunal. So the Insurance Company shall be liable to make the payment of the balance amount within 2 (two) months from today with interest @ 6% per annum. The Insurance Company shall deposit the balance compensation with the Registry of this Court within 2 (two) months from today. Thereupon, the claimant shall be at liberty to withdraw the amount from the Registry on being duly identified. 8. Appeal is accordingly allowed modifying the award. 9. Send down the records. 10. No order as to costs.