JUDGMENT : This first appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 4th August, 2015 rendered in Claim Petition No.677/1998 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur. 2. The accident in this case had taken place on or about 6.45 p.m. on 04.04.1997 at Tulani Bus Stop of Ordnance factory, Nagpur. In the accident, the husband of respondent no.1 and father of respondent nos. 2 and 3 suffered grievous injuries to which he succumbed almost immediately at the spot of accident. It was alleged that the accident occurred when the deceased, one Buddulal, was trying to board the City Bus bearing registration No. MH-12/R-1124, when another City Bus bearing registration No. MH-12/F-8442 came from behind and knocked down deceased Buddulal. The rashness and negligence was alleged against the drivers of both these city buses. Accordingly, a petition claiming compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the respondents. On merits of the case, the tribunal found that even though, the respondents were liable to receive the compensation, total amount of compensation which was computed to be at Rs.7,65,000/- was required to be reduced by half, on account of contributory negligence in equal measure on the part of the deceased – Buddulal and thus the tribunal further found that claimants were entitled to receive compensation of Rs.3,82,500/- only, and same was granted to them with interest payable from the date of petition till realization. Accordingly judgment and order were passed on 4th August, 2005 by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur. Not being satisfied with the same, the appellant MSRTC, is before this Court in the present appeal. 3. I have heard Shri Charpe, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears on behalf of respondents though duly served on merits. I have also gone through the record of the case including the impugned judgment and order. Now, the only point which arises for my determination is, Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper? 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per ratio in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. I have also gone through the record of the case including the impugned judgment and order. Now, the only point which arises for my determination is, Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper? 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per ratio in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the salary which was actually paid to the deceased at the time of the accident and not that salary which was received by him on account of pay revision subsequently made, as has been done by the tribunal. He maintains that as per ratio of Sarala Verma’s case (supra), it is the salary which is payable to the deceased at the time of accident which is relevant for the purpose of determination of the loss of income or loss of dependency. 5. In the instant case, the gross salary of the deceased which he received at the time of his death was of Rs.5,540/-. After the death of the deceased in the accident, his salary was revised and was given effect to from 01.01.1996 and onwards. The effect of revision was that his gross salary which was payable to the deceased at the time of accident i.e. on 04.04.1997 was raised to Rs.6,425/- per month. The effect of revised pay scale in the present case has been given retrospectively though it has been actually implemented after the death of the deceased. It is not the case here that the revision of the salary as well as effect of pay revision both have taken place after the date of the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly relied upon the ratio of the case of Asha and other Vs. United India Insurance Company, reported in 2004 ACJ 448 and applied the same to the facts of this case. Even the decision of Sarla Verma(supra) would show that what is to be considered is actual salary or the income received by the deceased at time of the accident. In the instant case, the revised salary has been paid to the deceased even for the month of March 1997, which fact is borne out from the evidence available on record. Even the decision of Sarla Verma(supra) would show that what is to be considered is actual salary or the income received by the deceased at time of the accident. In the instant case, the revised salary has been paid to the deceased even for the month of March 1997, which fact is borne out from the evidence available on record. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the decision of Sarala Verma’s case has not been properly applied to the facts of the instant case. The submission is, therefore, rejected. 6. Now, the question would arise as to whether or not, proper multiplier has been applied in the instant case. The multiplier applied has been of 15, which according to the learned counsel for the appellant could have been of 14, considering the fact that by the own admissions of the respondents, the deceased-Buddulal was of 45 years of age at the time of accident which indicated that he fell in the age group of 41-45 years. The submission deserves to be accepted out rightly. The respondents, in their Claim Petition, have shown the age of the deceased as of 45 years. The post mortem report vide Exh.28 also shows the age of the deceased to be of 45 years. Therefore, I find that at time of accident, the deceased was 45 years of age and he fell in the age group 41-45 years. As per the judgment of Sarla Verma (supra), for this age group, the proper multiplier is of 14 and not of 15. This multiplier would have to be applied to the annual income of the deceased which, after deducting 1/3rd amount for personal expenses, comes to Rs.50,000/-. The total loss of dependency for the respondents then would be of Rs.7,00,000/-. To this amount, additional sums like amounts of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.2,500/- and Rs.2,500/- on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, as already given by the Tribunal, would also have to be added and this would make the total compensation payable to be of Rs.7,15,000/-. From this amount, as rightly held by the learned Member of the Tribunal, 50% amount would have to be deducted on account of 50% contributory negligence of the deceased and doing so, the amount of compensation actually payable to the respondents would come to Rs.3,57,500/-. 7. From this amount, as rightly held by the learned Member of the Tribunal, 50% amount would have to be deducted on account of 50% contributory negligence of the deceased and doing so, the amount of compensation actually payable to the respondents would come to Rs.3,57,500/-. 7. Accordingly, I find that the respondents are entitled to receive from the appellant an amount of Rs.3,57,500/- together with 8% interest upon it from the date of petition till realization of this amount and same shall be paid by the appellant within three months from the date of the order. 8. If the decreetal amount calculated as per the impugned decree has already been deposited, there shall be no need for the appellant to deposit any further amount and the appellant would be entitled to withdraw any amount which is found to be in excess in terms of this order. In such a case, liberty would have to be given to the respondents to withdraw the amount, but, if the respondents have already withdrawn the amount, liberty to the appellant to recover from them whatever is found to be excess payment in terms of this order, would also have to be given to the appellant. Such liberty to both sides is given. The point is answered accordingly. 9. The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified in the above terms. The parties to bear their own costs.