JUDGMENT : K. Lahiri, J. 1. The appeal and the connected cross objections raise the following questions: (1) Who was responsible for the death of Robin Bora, who died in the motor accident? (2) Who is liable to pay compensation? (3) What should be the principle of apportionment of the liability between the 'insurer' and the 'insured' of the vehicle, if the vehicle, insured is found liable? and (4) What should be the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants? 2. Very recently the Parliament has provided payment of compensation on the principle of "no fault" vide, the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act (Act 47 of 1982). The amendment has fulfilled a long-felt aspiration of the claimants and wishes of the Judiciary. 3. The claimant is the mother of late Robin Bora. The latter was involved in a motor accident on 20.1069 at 2.30 p.m. and died on 11.11.69 in Jorhat hospital. She filed the compensation case on her behalf and on behalf of her children all of whom were dependents of Robin. Robin was a bachelor, aged about 34 years, working for gain as a bus conductor in the Assam State Transport Corporation. He met with the accident while travelling on duty from Gauhati to Tinsukia in Super Express Bus No. ASX 1987. The accident took place at Garistilla on National High Way No. 37. While 'the bus' was proceeding towards Jorhat a T.M.B truck No. ASJ 9581 loaded with materials including iron rods came at high speed from the opposite direction and one iron rod carried by the truck pierced Robin, who was sitting on the right side of the bus, pulled his arms out and Robin succumbed to the injury so sustained. He had six dependents--his mother, 3 brothers and 2 sisters. He was the eldest, a healthy young bachelor who, as it appears, could not marry for maintaining his dependants. He drew basic salary of Rs. 121/- dearness allowance of Rs. 50/- compensatory allowance of Rs. 2/- and trip allowance of Rs. 30.45 per month. His total earning was around Rs. 201.45 per month. The last slab of his basic pay as a conductor was Rs. 250/- with corresponding increase of the D.A. etc. He was entitled to 6 months pay as gratuity and pension on retirement. 50/- compensatory allowance of Rs. 2/- and trip allowance of Rs. 30.45 per month. His total earning was around Rs. 201.45 per month. The last slab of his basic pay as a conductor was Rs. 250/- with corresponding increase of the D.A. etc. He was entitled to 6 months pay as gratuity and pension on retirement. After he had died, his mother as claimant filed an application for compensation before the Presiding Officer Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Jorhat for short "the member", which was registered as MACT Case No. 69, of 1969. She claimed Rupees one lakh as compensation which included medical and other expenses incurred by her while the deceased was in hospital. She made the owner of the truck and the bus responsible for the accident and asked for compensation against both of them as well as the insurer of the truck. Four witnesses were examined by her and one witness was examined on behalf of the opposite parties. Learned Member held that the vehicles were at high speed, that one of the iron rods carried by the truck pierced the hands of Robin, pulled it out while he was sitting inside the bus, that the hand of the deceased was inside the bus or on the window sill but never outside. Learned Member held that the iron rods pierced the hand of the deceased in consequence whereof he died and that the truck driver was responsible for the accident as the iron rods were loose and tossing. However, learned Member held the owner of both the vehicles liable for compensation. The monthly pay and allowances of the deceased was determined at Rs. 207/- . It was held that the deceased used to spend half of the amount for his maintenance and spent Rs. 100/- per month for his dependants. Thus the annual dependency was calculated at Rs. 1000/- which should have been Rs. 1,200. Learned Member held that it was a fit case where the dependency should be multiplied by the highest multiplier, that is 15 and accordingly he fixed the total compensation at Rs. 15,000/- and directed the amount to be paid equally by the insurer of the truck and the owner of the bus. The claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 15,000/- and directed the amount to be paid equally by the insurer of the truck and the owner of the bus. The claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the compensation. Respondent No. 3, the State Transport Corporation, owner of the bus have filed cross objection No. Company 189 of 1976 and claimed that they were not liable as there was no negligence of their bus driver. Respondent No. 1 the owner of the truck, has filed Company No. 217 of 1976 against the award. Respondent No. 4, the insurer, United India Fire and Genera Insurance Company Ltd. has also filed Company No. 216 of 1976. 4. None disputed before us (1) that the death of Robin resulted from the accident arising out of use of the motor vehicles, namely, Super Express Bus No. ASX 1986 and TMB Truck No. ASJ 1981, (2) that the deceased Robin was on duty as conductor in the Super Express Bus. The owner and the insurer of the truck blamed the bus driver whereas the Corporation charged the truck for the fatal accident. 5. Admittedly, both the vehicles were on the National Highway and the drivers had duties of care at least to the vehicles and the pedestrians using the road. It is true, as has been contended by Learned Counsel for the Respondents that the claimants were to establish negligence on the part of the offending vehicle or vehicles. Indeed, both the vehicles were on high speed as stated by P.W. 3, Mohibur Rahaman but in the same breath the witness stated that the truck came from the opposite direction loaded with loose iron rods and other materials and crossed the bus at a very close range; the loose iron rods were tossing and one of those pierced and pulled out an arm of Robin, so the witness testified. P.W. 4, Sudhangshu, another co-passenger deposed that he was drowsy but he noticed that Robin was inside the bus and sustained the injury while thus sitting. On turning to the evidence of N. Rahman, opposite party witness No. 1, we find that it was not a head on collision as only on the right side of the bus-body there was a piercing scratch 12' 16" in length and the emergency door on the right side was damaged. On turning to the evidence of N. Rahman, opposite party witness No. 1, we find that it was not a head on collision as only on the right side of the bus-body there was a piercing scratch 12' 16" in length and the emergency door on the right side was damaged. In so far as the truck was concerned, the witness stated, it was loaded with MS rods and other materials. The vehicles were moving in the opposite directions. The scratch mark on the right side of the bus read with the testimony of the eye-witness that an iron spike penetrated through the hand of the deceased who was inside the bus clearly establish that the object which struck the bus and penetrated the hand of Robin was nothing but a loose iron rod carried by the truck. Therefore the direct and proximate cause of the fatal injury was the iron rod carried on the truck. The road was free, it was a National Highway and there was no speed restriction. But why did the driver of the truck carry loose iron rods obviously dangerous objects. It is one of the elements of failure to take proper and reasonable care for the safety of the users of the road, which includes passengers or occupants of vehicles using the road. Not only did the driver negligently carry the loose iron rods but be had no business to come so close to the bus when he had such menacing objects on the truck. It is thus seen that the truck was not only at high speed, menacingly carrying loose iron rods but also driven in close proximity of a passenger-carrying vehicle. All these factors pointedly establish that the driver of the truck was directly and primarily responsible for the injury resulting in the death of Robin. It has been contended by Learned Counsel for the insurer of the truck (Appellant in Company No. 216 of 1976) and the owner of the truck (Appellant in C.O. No. 217 of 1976), that the findings of learned Member who held the driver and the owner of the bus liable to pay compensation were correct. However, we do not find any firm finding why he held the owner of the bus responsible for the accident. Mr. However, we do not find any firm finding why he held the owner of the bus responsible for the accident. Mr. B. Sarma, Learned Counsel for the Corporation has rightly contended that learned Member committed an error in holding the driver of the bus responsible for the death of Robin. Learned Member merely recited the submissions of the counsel for the owner of the truck that negligence should be read in the action of the bus driver as he had failed to control the vehicle because the body of the bus and the driving seat were loose as deposed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, O.P.W. 1. This was the only factor urged by the counsel against the bus driver. Learned Tribunal without giving any decision on the contention merely concluded that both the drivers were responsible for the accident-In short, there is no finding why the bus driver was held responsible. Let us assume that the learned member had accepted the arguments of the counsel for the truck owner that the bus had a defective body and driving seat. However, the positive evidence of the witness was that those defects or the damages were "due to accident". There is no evidence worth the name that the driver of the bus ever failed to control the vehicle at any point of time, including at the time of the impact. Admittedly, there was side-wise impact of the iron rods carried on the truck with the bus-body that hindered the forward movement of the bus. We are unable to assume that the slack or loose body existed even before the impact. Direct and positive evidence is that the injury was due to the penetration of loose iron spikes carried by the truck driver. We are, therefore, unable to hold the bus driver responsible for the injury caused to Robin. The truck was at a high speed, negligently carried loose iron spikes which were tossing, the driver did not slow down on seeing the approaching passenger-bus and came so close that one of the loose iron spikes could penetrate the body of the bus, injure Robin who was sitting inside the bus and pull out his hand resulting in the death of Robin. We have no hesitation in reaching the conclusion, on the facts and circumstances of the case, that the truck driver was primarily and exclusively responsible for the death of Robin. We have no hesitation in reaching the conclusion, on the facts and circumstances of the case, that the truck driver was primarily and exclusively responsible for the death of Robin. We hold that the fatal accident was caused by the truck driver. So the owner of the truck and/or the insurer must be held liable to pay the compensation. 6. The next question is the method of assessment of compensation and determination of the amount of damages. There is no guideline in the Act for determining compensation. The Tribunals are authorised to determine compensation which it may consider just. The Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1885 gives some datum or basic principles for determination of compensation. To determine compensation various ponderable factors need be considered. What was the salary or the earnings of the deceased at the time of his premature death? What was the life expectancy of the deceased by which the life has been cut short? What is the age of the dependant? What are the prospects of increase in the earnings of the deceased? Besides these, a host of other allied factors may come which may, strictly speaking, fall in the category of speculation or general estimation, more or less based on surmises and conjectures. There is no cast iron formula. However, the basic principles which are culled from the decisions of the Supreme Court appear to be the following: (1) The compensation to be assessed must be the pecuniary loss caused to the dependents by the death of the person concerned. (2) While calculating the compensation, annual dependency of the dependents should be determined in terms of the annual loss accruing to them due to the abrupt termination of life. To determine the point, the earning of the deceased at the time of the accident and the amount which the deceased was spending for the dependents are the basic determinative factors. The resultant figure should then be multiplied by a multiplier. To determine the point, the earning of the deceased at the time of the accident and the amount which the deceased was spending for the dependents are the basic determinative factors. The resultant figure should then be multiplied by a multiplier. (3) The multiplier is to be determined by taking into consideration the number of years of the dependency of the dependents, the number of years by which the life of the deceased was cut short and various other imponderable factors like possibility of early natural death of the deceased, possibility of his incapacity of supporting the dependents due to illness or other causes, the prospect of remarriage of the widow, coining of age of the dependents and possibility of acquisition of independent source of income by them. The multiplier adopted by the Supreme Court vary but 20 years' multiplier is the highest. In M.P.S.R.T. Corporation v. Sudhakar, 1977 ACJ 290 (SC) , the Tribunal assessed the monthly dependency at Rs. 50 and awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000 as compensation. The deceased, at the time of her death was a Physical Instructress and drew Rs. 190/- per month. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the award by adopting 20 years' multiplier relying on Mallet's case 1969 A.C.J. 312 (H.L., England). The relevant observations of the Supreme Court are quoted: ... the lady had 30 years of service before her when she died. We have found that the claimants loss reasonably worked out to Rs. 50/- a month i.e., Rs. 600/- a year. Keeping in mind all the relevant factors and contingencies and taking 20 as the suitable multiplier, the figure comes to Rs. 12,000/- . The Tribunal's award cannot, therefore, be challenged as too low though it was not based on proper ground. In Smt. Manjushri Raha and Others Vs. B.L. Gupta and Others, , the deceased was aged 37 years who died in a bus accident. His monthly salary was Rs. 600/- . The Tribunal awarded compensation at Rs. 60,000/- . On appeal the Supreme Court enhanced the amount to Rs. 1 lakh. The increase was due to the fact that the High Court had not taken into account the salary which the deceased would have earned while reaching the maximum of his grade long before his retirement. It was estimated that the deceased would have reached the maximum of his grade of Rs. 1 lakh. The increase was due to the fact that the High Court had not taken into account the salary which the deceased would have earned while reaching the maximum of his grade long before his retirement. It was estimated that the deceased would have reached the maximum of his grade of Rs. 900/- at the age of 45 before his superannuation. In C.K. Subramania Iyer and Others Vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair and Others, , while assessing damages their Lordships held that the court should exclude all considerations which are based on speculation though conjecture to some extent is inevitable. However, it has been held that as a general rule parents are entitled to recover the present cash value of the prospective service of the deceased minor, in addition they may receive compensation for loss of pecuniary benefits reasonably to be expected after the child attained majority. The decision lays down that for the purpose of determination of damages not only the actual earning of the deceased at the time of his death is required to be taken into consideration but the prospective loss of earning is also relevant and essential for consideration. From the scrutiny of the decisions we find that the settled rules to determine the quantum of damages in fatal accident cases are. To work out a basic figure of annual loss to the dependents due to the premature death of the bread earner to be arrived at on the basis of the salary or earning of the deceased at the time of the accident. His future prospect of increase of earning also need be taken into account. The figure thus arrived at need be converted into a lump-sum by applying a suitable multiplier. In M.P.S.R.T. Corporation v. Sudhakar, 1977 ACJ 290 (SC) the Supreme Court has approved 20 years' multiplier. After determining the basic figure relating to the annual dependency, it should be multiplied by the number of years by which the life expectancy of the victim has been cut short. Some deductions should be made for the lump-sum payment of compensation to the claimant. The basic figure of annual dependency should be multiplied by a suitable multiplier on consideration of the life expectancy of the deceased as well as the average life of the dependents, amongst other factors. 7. Some deductions should be made for the lump-sum payment of compensation to the claimant. The basic figure of annual dependency should be multiplied by a suitable multiplier on consideration of the life expectancy of the deceased as well as the average life of the dependents, amongst other factors. 7. The learned Tribunal determined compensation holding that the monthly pay and allowance of the deceased was Rs. 207/- at the time of the accident and held that the deceased spent more than half of his income for his own maintenance. The monthly dependency of the dependents was held to be Rs. 100/- , however, while fixing the annual dependency instead of Rs. 1,200/- , learned Member determined it at Rs. 1,000/- , Learned Member held that the deceased was aged 34 years and that it was a lit case were the dependency should be multiplied by 'highest multiplier, namely 15' and accordingly, assessed the total loss at Rs. 15,000/- . It has been urged by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that there is error apparent on the face of the record. We have noticed that learned Member held the annual dependency at Rs. 1,000/- which should have been Rs. 1,200/- and applying the multiplier 15, the total comes to Rs. 18,000/- . In our estimation the deceased used to earn Rs. 201.48 per month at the time of the accident. There is evidence to show that the last slab of his basic pay as a conductor was Rs. 250/- with corresponding increase of D.A. etc. He was entitled to gratuity and pension on retirement. At the relevant time he was aged 34 years and a bachelor. He did not marry, as it appears, for sustaining his mother, brothers and sisters. It appears that he remained bachelor for maintaining the family. We are of the view that he spent bulk of his income for maintaining the members of the family. A bachelor's necessities could not have been on the high side. There is no evidence that he had any habit like drinking or smoking, for which he could have spent some amount. However, taking an overall view of the entire matter, we reach the conclusion that the deceased spent Rs. 120/- per month towards maintaining the family which was the monthly dependency. The annual dependency thus comes to Rs. 1,440. There is no evidence that he had any habit like drinking or smoking, for which he could have spent some amount. However, taking an overall view of the entire matter, we reach the conclusion that the deceased spent Rs. 120/- per month towards maintaining the family which was the monthly dependency. The annual dependency thus comes to Rs. 1,440. Taking all factors into consideration we adopt 18 years' multiplier reach the conclusion that the pecuniary loss to the dependents was Rs. 25,920 i.e. Rs. 26,000/- . We have adopted 18 years' multiplier considering the age of the deceased and the dependents. We have also taken into consideration that he could have earned for about 20 years and there was prospect of increase in pay and allowances. We have also considered that the dependents had to spend some amount for attending the deceased while he was lying in hospital and expenses incurred in his 'Sradh' and other ceremonies. At the same time we have taken care of the uncertainties and vicissitudes of life and other possibilities like the possibility of natural death of the deceased, possibility of some of dependents securing some earning somewhere after coming of age. However, we have borne in mind they are Hindus and the family system to which they belong do not permit a head of the family to throw out a dependent on attaining the age of majority. The duties and obligations of a common average Indian are to maintain all within the family-fold unless they become independent and quit the family. Taking all these factors into consideration, we have reduced the multiplier from 21 to 18. For the foregoing reasons we hold that the owner of the truck and/or its insurer are liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 8. Now the question is the apportionment of the liability between the insurer and the truck owner. The insurer had taken up the plea in their cross-objection that the truck was not insured with them. However, if we turn to the written statement we find that they never contented that the truck was not insured with them. In fact, they filed written statement stating clearly that they were "only liable to pay compensation in terms of the policy read with Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act". The limit of liability of the insurer was Rs. 20,000/- at all relevant time. In fact, they filed written statement stating clearly that they were "only liable to pay compensation in terms of the policy read with Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act". The limit of liability of the insurer was Rs. 20,000/- at all relevant time. The accident occurred during the currency of the policy, the insurance company had issued a certificate of insurance to the owner of the truck undertaking "liability as the one under Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act". Therefore, the insurer's liability for third party risk under the statutory policy was limited to Rs. 20,000/- at the relevant time. Therefore, out of the total compensation of Rs. 26,000/- the insurer shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to the Appellant. The owner of the truck namely Respondent No. 1 shall pay the balance of Rs. 6,000/- . In the result we allow the appeal to the extent indicated above. We dismiss the cross-objections of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 being C.Os. No. 216 and 217 of 1976 and allow the cross-objection filed by Respondent No. 3. 9. In the result the Appellant shall be entitled to compensation of Rs. 26,000/- from the Respondent No. 1 Shri Gauri Shankar Agarwalla and Respondent No. 4, the United India Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd., to the extent indicated above. We award a sum of Rs. 300/- as cost payable equally by the Respondents 1 and 4 to the Appellant. 10. Before parting we would observe that we were contemplating to award solatium to the bereaved dependents but noticed that the principles enunciated by Lord Wright in Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Limited 1942 A.C. 601, have been accepted in India. Lord Wright observed: There is no question here of what may be called sentimental damages, bereavement or pain and suffering. It is a hard matter of pound, shilling and pence, subject to the element of reasonable future probabilities. Ruefully we observe that the ways of life and the family system in England and other western countries and Indian life style and family system are poles apart. In India the bread-earner or a head of family or relation is not a money earning machine, nor do Indians throw old parents to the Homes, nor do they disown children coming of age even when they cannot earn and live independently. In India the bread-earner or a head of family or relation is not a money earning machine, nor do Indians throw old parents to the Homes, nor do they disown children coming of age even when they cannot earn and live independently. According to Indian heritage a senior member of the family is a friend, philosopher and guide. They are the guiding stars of their families. Indians lament more for the loss of the guiding stars, the fountain of love and affection when their relations die and do not clamour for money instead of the deceased. They can forego money if the person is returned hale and hearty. We feel that in every death of a member of the family there is a painful suffering due to the bereavement much more than the 'loss of pound, shilling and pence'. When land is acquired which Indian considered as 'mother', law provides for solatium under the Land Acquisition Act. It is nothing but payment of compensation for sentimental values. We wished we could have awarded sentimental damages for bereavement, pains and sufferings to the dependents. However, we have refrained from awarding any solatium due to the weight of authorities.