MACApp. 16/2003 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B LOKUR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.D. AGARWAL The appellant is aggrieved by an Award dated 14/8/2002 passed by the Motor Accid ent Claims Tribunal, Cachar, Silchar, in MAC Case No. 242/97. From the facts on record, it appears that the husband of the claimant wa s knocked down by a mini bus of the appellant. At that time, the deceased was ab out 50 years of age and he sustained injuries which led to his death. The widow of the deceased i.e. the claimant/respondent filed a petition for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cachar, Silchar, cla iming Rs. 5,93,100/-. During the trial, it was proved that the deceased was an UD Assistant of the Public Works Department under the Government of Tripura and was drawing a s alary of Rs. 4,341/- per month as per the salary certificate which was exhibited as Exhibit-1. The Tribunal noted that according to the evidence on record, the decease d was about 50 years of age at the time of his death. Under the circumstances, it appears that the annual income of the deceas ed was about Rs. 51,000/- and the multiplier as per the Second Schedule to the M otor Vehicles Act, 1988, should have been either 11 or 13, the deceased being on the borderline of 50 years of age. On this basis, the Tribunal appears to have taken the multiplier to be 13 and, therefore, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,57,500/- to the claimant as also other amounts towards funeral expenses and loss of consort ium etc. Since the claimant had already received an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as no fault claim, the entitlement of the claimant was Rs. 3,07,500/-. Feeling aggrieved by the Award of the Tribunal, the appellant has filed this appeal. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there is nothi ng to show that the appellant was 50 years of age at the time of the accident. I am not in agreement with this submission since it is quite clear from the evidence on record and this has also been found by the Tribunal that the dec eased was aged about 50 years at the time of the accident. There is nothing to d isturb this finding. It is then submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that since the deceased was a Government servant, the Tribunal ought to have taken the multipl ier to be 8 since the retirement age of a Government servant is 58 years. This may be so, but the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act requir es that for a person of the age of 50 years, the multiplier adopted should be ei ther 11 or 13. Surely the Legislature was aware that a Government servant retire s at the age of 58 or 60 years but inspite of that, it is mentioned in the Secon d Schedule that for a person of the age mentioned above, the multiplier adopted would be either 11 or 13 as the case may. The reason behind this is that even af ter superannuation at the age of 58 or 60, a Government servant would be able to do some useful work and that is why the multiplier has been fixed at more than 8. No challenge has also been made to the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Under the circumstance, I find no reason to interfere with the Award mad e by the Tribunal. There is no merit in the appeal and is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. Learned counsel for the claimant informs me that pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court, the appellant had deposited 50% of the awarded amoun t and this has since been withdrawn by the claimant. The respondent would now be liable to pay the balance amount to the clai mant in terms of the Award passed by the Tribunal with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. The claimant would also be entitled to the costs as above. Trial courts record be sent back immediately.