JUDGMENT & ORDER : These two appeals arising out of the same accident are directed against two separate judgments bearing the same date, i.e. 27-2-2013 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 4, West Tripura in T.S. (MAC) No 128 of 2012 and T.S.(MAC) No. 134 of 2012 awarding compensations to two sets of claimants. 2. The factum of the vehicular accident taking place on 27-1-2012 resulting in the death of one Shibhu Singh, husband of the claimant-respondent No. 1 and father of the claimant respondent No. 2 in the first of the appeals and of the death of one Haladhar Malakar, husband of the claimant-respondent No. 1 of the second of the appeals, is not in dispute. In the first of the appeal, the deceased died leaving behind him his wife, the claimant-respondent No. 1 and his minor-daughter, was found to be 28 years old at the time of the accident and was a bus driver by occupation and earned an income of Rs.6,000/- per month at the time of the accident. In the second of the appeals, i.e. MAC Appeal No. 133 of 2013, the deceased was found to be a bachelor at the age of 23 years, when he died of the vehicular accident and is survived by his mother, was aged about 48 years, and was found to be a driver and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The claim petition was filed by his mother. Three contentions advanced by Mr. P. Gautam, the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer in both the appeals to attack the impugned judgment, are (i) the Tribunal has erred in adopting the multiplier of 17 on the basis of the age of the deceased for the purpose of multiplier and not on the age of the parents; (ii) the imposition of penal interest of 9% per annum on the compensation is ex facie illegal and without jurisdiction and (iii) the Tribunal also committed illegality by making addition of future income to the extent of 30% when the legality of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 has been referred to a larger Bench by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa, (2015) 9 SCC 166 and is yet to be decided. Ltd. v. Pushpa, (2015) 9 SCC 166 and is yet to be decided. He, therefore, strenuously urges this Court to set aside the impugned judgment or otherwise modifies thereof so that the claimants-respondents in both the appeals are not granted disproportionate and excessive amount of compensations. The impugned judgment is, however, supported by the Mr. H. Debnath, the learned counsel for the claimant-respondents and submits that the compensations were granted by the Tribunal after taking into account all materials available on record and justly, for which the interference is not called for. He also submits that the fact that the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra) adding 30% in income towards future prospects of the deceased cannot be given a go by merely because a larger Bench is now reconsidering that decision; he informs this Court that the larger Bench has neither stayed Sarla Verma case nor disposed of till now. 3. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. I have also carefully gone through the materials on record and the findings of the Tribunal. In so far as addition of future income of the deceased to the extent of 30% as future prospects is concerned, the law holding the field until and unless interfered with by the Apex Court, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant-respondents inasmuch as the decision in Sarla Verma as explained in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 is yet to be interfered with by the larger Bench of the Apex Court. This is what the Apex Court said in Rajesh case (supra): “9. In Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 , a three-Judge Bench, delivered the judgment on 12-4-2013, opining thus: (SCC p. 61, paras 8-9) “8. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi case, Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 , actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , and to make it applicable also to the self-employed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years. 9. In Sarla Verma case (supra), it has been stated that in the case of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition. Having regard to the fact that in the case of those self-employed or on fixed wages, where there is normally no age of superannuation, we are of the view that it will only be just and equitable to provide an addition of 15% in the case where the victim is between the age group of 50 to 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. There shall normally be no addition thereafter.” 4. In the first of the appeals, the Tribunal held that there should be 30% increase in the total monthly earnings of the deceased. As the deceased died a bachelor in the vehicular accident at the age of 28 years, a la Rajesh case (supra), there should be addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing his future prospects. However, as there is no cross-appeal to the decision of the Tribunal in this behalf, there needs no interference from this Court. As for the second of the appeals concerning this issue, the deceased was found to be between the ages of 26 years and 30 years. Therefore, as in the previous appeal, there should have been addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased for future prospects, but where there is no cross-appeal against the decision of the Tribunal awarding an addition of 30% to the actual income of the deceased for future prospects, I decline to interfere therewith. 5. This then takes me to the deduction to be made for personal and living expenses from the income of the deceased. In the case of the first of the appeals, the deceased was a bachelor and was between the ages of 26 and 30 years. 5. This then takes me to the deduction to be made for personal and living expenses from the income of the deceased. In the case of the first of the appeals, the deceased was a bachelor and was between the ages of 26 and 30 years. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased for his personal and living expenses, while in the case of the second of the appeals, the Tribunal deducted 50% from the income of the deceased as his personal and living expenses as he was a bachelor. The law in this field is again propounded by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma case (supra), where it is held: “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362 the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses 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 dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. 31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and 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 and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. 32. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. 32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.” 6. In my opinion, there is no infirmity in the decision of the Tribunal in making such deductions as they are in conformity with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma case. As for the selection of multiplier, in the first of the appeals, the Tribunal, I think, did not commit any wrong in selecting 17 as the multiplier to assess the loss of income to the family. In the case of the second of the appeals, though the deceased died a bachelor between the ages of 26 and 30 years, and the claim petition was filed by his mother, the Tribunal did not err in selecting 17 as the multiplier to arrive at the loss of dependency. If any decision is required in this behalf, I may conveniently refer to Munna Lal Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma, (2015) 6 SCC 347 at para 11 of the judgment: “11. The remaining question is only on multiplier. The High Court following Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 , has taken 13 as the multiplier. Whether the multiplier should depend on the age of the dependants or that of the deceased, has been hanging fire for sometime; but that has been given a quietus by another three-Judge Bench decision in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 . It was held that the multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased. It was held that the multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased. One reason appears to be that there is certainty with regard to the age of the deceased but as far as that of dependants is concerned, there will always be room for dispute as to whether the age of the eldest or youngest or even the average, etc., is to be taken. To quote: [Reshma Kumari case (supra)] “36. In Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , this Court has endeavoured to simplify the otherwise complex exercise of assessment of loss of dependency and determination of compensation in a claim made under Section 166. It has been rightly stated in Sarla Verma (supra) that the claimants in case of death claim for the purposes of compensation must establish (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependants. To arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal must consider (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deductions to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. We do not think it is necessary for us to revisit the law on the point as we are in full agreement with the view in Sarla Verma (supra).” 12. In Sarla Verma case (supra), at para 19, a two-Judge Bench dealt with this aspect in Step 2. To quote: (SCC p. 133) “19. … Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and 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 imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.” 13. The multiplier, in the case of the age of the deceased between 26 to 30 years is 17. There is no dispute or grievance on fixation of monthly income as Rs. 12,000 by the High Court.” 7. Need I say more? There is no merit in any of these appeals, which are hereby dismissed. The multiplier, in the case of the age of the deceased between 26 to 30 years is 17. There is no dispute or grievance on fixation of monthly income as Rs. 12,000 by the High Court.” 7. Need I say more? There is no merit in any of these appeals, which are hereby dismissed. The insurer is directed to deposit with this Registry the entire awarded amount together with interest @ 7% per annum within two months from the date of receipt of this judgment for payment to the claimant-respondents in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal. However, no penal interest on the awarded amounts need be paid by the insurer in both the appeals. As and when the awarded amount with the interest accrued thereon are deposited, the same shall be released to the claimant-respondents without further reference to this Court. Needless to say, any amount already paid to or deposited by the insurer/appellant shall be adjusted accordingly. No cost. Transmit the L.C. records forthwith.