JUDGMENT Biswanath Rath, J. - This Motor Accident Claims Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company-New India Assurance Company challenging the quantum assessed by the 1st Additional District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T., Cuttack in MAC No.905 of 2015. 2. Short background involved in the case is that on the date and time mentioned therein, while the deceased was standing with his Honda Activa bearing Registration No.OD-25-A-6654 on the extreme left side of the road of the embankment of the river Daya near Golara village, at that time, the offending vehicle came with high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased from his backside, as a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Kanas Hospital by the help of local people and when his condition became aggravated, he was referred to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswra for better treatment, where he succumbed to injuries during the course of treatment. The deceased was only 53 years old at the time of death and getting salary of Rs.67,000/- per month working as an Asst. Manager, Odisha Gramya Bank, Gadisagada under the Puri District. The opposite party no.1 in MAC No.905 of 2015, the owner of the registered (offending) vehicle entered his appearance in the proceeding by filing the written statement and denied the occurrence on the premises of no involvement of the vehicle in question with the mishap yet submitted that at the time of accident his vehicle was validly insured with the appellant herein. The Insurance Company, as opposite party no.2 therein, filed objection denying the liability as well as the quantum itself. It was further alleged that the Driver of the vehicle was not even having valid license at the time of accident. 3. The Tribunal while deciding the matter has framed the following issues: " I S S U E S 1. Whether due to rash and (or) negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration no.OR-14-M-2299 the accident took place and in that accident the deceased, Bhikshyakari @ Bhikari behera, succumbed to injures? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get the compensation. If so, what would be the extent? 3. Whether both the Opposite Parties or either of them are/is liable to pay the compensation? And 4. To what relief(s), if any, the petitioners are entitled to? 4. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get the compensation. If so, what would be the extent? 3. Whether both the Opposite Parties or either of them are/is liable to pay the compensation? And 4. To what relief(s), if any, the petitioners are entitled to? 4. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the materials available on record orally as well as documentary, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident involved is caused due to negligent driving of the vehicle in question with further finding that the vehicle was also insured at the time of accident. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the claim application directing the appellant herein to pay the total compensation of Rs.60,52,276/- with simple interest @6% per annum w.e.f. from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 5.12.2015 to the claimants alongwith other directions further imposing penal interest, if the appellant here is defaulted in making such payment in time and further determining distribution of the compensation amongst the legal heirs of the deceased in the manner reflected therein. 5. Challenging the impugned order, the Insurance Company while disputing the validity of the Insurance of the vehicle at the time of accident and also while not challenging the liability aspect, raised its objection involving the quantum only. Taking this Court to the grounds in the memorandum of appeal and further, taking this Court to the discussions of the Tribunal in the impugned award, particularly to the aspect that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the Income Tax deduction, further not taking into account the personal expenditure, while submitting that there is no proper application of mind in determination on the above head by the Tribunal, Shri R.M. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant further also contended that there has been no proper application of multiplier applied in the case at any particularly looking to the age of the deceased. It is, in the above premises, Shri Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned award is highly excessive and unless this Court interferes in the impugned award, the same will result bad precedent. 6. It is, in the above premises, Shri Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned award is highly excessive and unless this Court interferes in the impugned award, the same will result bad precedent. 6. In his opposition, Shri K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4 taking this Court to the plea of the claimants in the Court below and the materials oral as well as documentary as discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned award, submitted that there is no illegality committed by the Tribunal and for the right direction by the Tribunal, this Court has no scope for interfering in the impugned award. 7. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and looking to the pleading of the claimants, this Court finds, admittedly, the deceased was a salaried employee and there has been also material available establishing that the deceased was an Income Tax assesse also. Looking to the assessment of Income Tax by the deceased at the time of death and the discussion in the award, this Court finds, there is no consideration on the aspect of the Tax deduction by the Tribunal concerned. So far as the personal expenditure is concerned, this Court looking to the findings of the Tribunal with regard to personal expenditure finds, the Tribunal instead of calculating the deduction of one third personal expenditure, has deducted one forth towards personal expenditure. Further, looking to the age of the deceased at the time of death, this Court finds, there is miscalculation so far as the multiplier is concerned. The Tribunal instead of applying 11 multiplier, should have applied 9 multiplier at the maximum keeping in view the age of the deceased and the age of the claimants at that particular time. Mar Das, has no scope of objection to all the above though the matter needs to be redetermination on all the above aspects. The Tribunal instead of applying 11 multiplier, should have applied 9 multiplier at the maximum keeping in view the age of the deceased and the age of the claimants at that particular time. Mar Das, has no scope of objection to all the above though the matter needs to be redetermination on all the above aspects. At this stage of the matter, both the learned counsels requested this Court for not remitting the matter for recalculation on all these aspects and instead of deciding the quantum at the reduced rate, while recording force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, taking into account all the three aspect involved herein, this Court finds, grant of Rs.45,00,000/- as total compensation will be appropriate and accordingly, this Court interfering in the impugned award reduced the total compensation from Rs.60,52,276/- to Rs.45,00,000/- with simple interest @ 6% per annum. The amount involved in the modified award shall be released in favour of the claimants in the Court below within two months as undertaken. At this same time, this Court also maintains the condition in the impugned award granting 12% penal interest in the event, the Insurance Company fails to deposit the reduced amount within two months. This Court since finds, there will be change in the release and deposit pattern involving the legal heirs of the deceased for the reduction in the total compensation, leaves it open to the 1st MACT, Cuttack to release the modified amount taking into account the reduction of the total compensation and pass appropriate order in the said regard in maintaining proper proportion. 8. The Motor Accident Claims Appeal succeeds but however, with reduction in the total compensation and with the other observation made hereinabove. After deposit is being made in the Tribunal and receipt of the same is being filed in this Court, the statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company shall be released in favour of the Insurance Company.