Judgement LAHIRI, J. :- We have heard the appeals together with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties as they involve common questions of law and facts. We proceed to dispose of the same immediately after hearing learned Counsel for both the parties bearing to mind the message, amounting to command of the Supreme Court, in State of Haryana v. Darshana Devi, AIR 1979 SC 855 directing us to dispose of such cases as expeditiously as possible. 2. The appellants have preferred the appeals against a common award made by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sibsagar, Jorhat in M.A.C.T. Case Nos. 30/73, 31/73 and 32/73 awarding compensation to the respondents. 3. The relevant facts are that on 19-9-73 at about 8 a.m. a transport vehicle belonging to the Assam Rifles knocked down and ploughed over Punai, Chowkidar of Kaliapani M.E. School and two young students of the school, Haren and Deben, who were going by the extreme left side of she road. After dashing the three pedestrians, the transport vehicle went off the road and landed in the road side field. Punai, the Chowkidar, Haren and Deben, two young boys, were crushed to death on the spot. The widow of the Chowkidar and mothers of the two children preferred applications for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the Rules framed thereunder. The Tribunal recorded the evidence of the witnesses, heard learned Counsel for the parties and awarded compensation of Rs. 21,000/- to the wife of the Chowkidar and Rs. 7,000/- each to the mothers of the boys. So, the price of three human lives was assessed at Rs. 35,000/-. 4. A widow lost her husband and infant child lost its father in the accident due to the negligence of the truck driver of the appellants and got Rs. 21,000/- as compensation. It is still a paper award. Two mothers lost their growing children and the compensation awarded was Rs. 7,000/- apiece. The price of a cow is perhaps Rs. 7,000/- or so, in this part of the land. The Assam Rifles have earned a great reputation in war and battle but this battle which they have waged against a poor widow and the grief stricken mothers is something queer, interesting but depressing as well. 7,000/- apiece. The price of a cow is perhaps Rs. 7,000/- or so, in this part of the land. The Assam Rifles have earned a great reputation in war and battle but this battle which they have waged against a poor widow and the grief stricken mothers is something queer, interesting but depressing as well. The public institutions convict themselves of untrustworthiness out of their own mouth by fighting litigation like a cantankerous litigant for an insignificant amount raising technical pleas, said their Lordships in The Trustees of Port of Bombay v. The Premier Automobiles Ltd., AIR 1974 SC 923 : (1974) 4 SCC 710 . When the State of Haryana raised a technical plea before their Lordships in State of Haryana v. Darshana Devi, ( AIR 1979 SC 855 ) (supra) it was observed that the Government had committed a social wrong in not settling the claim forthwith, but fighting like a cantankerous litigant. In Darshana Devi (supra), the State preferred a similar appeal. There, a widow and daughter claimed compensation for the killing of the sole bread-winner by a State Transport Bus. The Haryana Government instead of settling the claim of the pathetic claimants preferred an appeal on a technical ground. Leave to appeal was dismissed with a message tag. One of the messages was that the State had unhappily failed to recall its duty under Art.41 of the Constitution to render public assistance, without litigation, in cases of disablement and undeserved want. Their Lordships have noted the nuturious fact that our highways are graveyards on a tragic scale and narrow land and neglected road are scenes of unchecked, reckless driving by heavy vehicular traffic and the State Vehicles inflicted the maximum casualties. Their Lordships indicated that the principle of no fault liability and on the spot settlement of claims should be our national policy. Their Lordships further-noted that in many States for want of judicial man power or pathological causes, the accident cases pend before the Tribunal in heartless slowness. Their Lordships observed that the courts must give the bleeding class of cases high priority, adopt simplified procedure without breach of natural justice, try out pre-trial settlement and bear in mind "that wiping every tear from every eye" has judicial relevance, for law must keep its promise to justice. 5. Their Lordships observed that the courts must give the bleeding class of cases high priority, adopt simplified procedure without breach of natural justice, try out pre-trial settlement and bear in mind "that wiping every tear from every eye" has judicial relevance, for law must keep its promise to justice. 5. In the instant case a hapless widow and the grief stricken mothers of two grown up young persons prayed compensation for the killing of sole bread winner and the brutal loss of the young persons who were sources of boosting family earnings and potential bread winners. The Assam Rifles and the Union of India instead of acting on social justice and generously settling the claim are fighting like cantankerous litigants. Now, the law has changed and the principle of no fault liability and on the spot payment have become the law, vide The Assam Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1982. Was there any justification not to render public assistance to hapless persons, the widow and the mothers ? Have the respondents performed their Constitutional duties under Art.41 of the Constitution ? On perusal of the materials on record we find no justification for the appellants not to pay forthwith suitable compensations to the pathetic claimants to conserve the rule of law and uphold the tryst with the Constitution and perform their duties under Art.41 of the Constitution in rendering public assistance without litigation in cases of disablement and undeserved want. The accident occurred in 1973, the award was made in 1975 and we are in 1986. The appellants are yet to pay the awarded amount, very insignificant amounts insofar as the appellants are concerned, but very precious and dear to the claimants-respondents. 6. Mr. D.P. Chaliha, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing on behalf of the appellants has contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle and as such, the award is bad in law. The second contention is that learned Tribunal was wrong in calculating the compensation, and, thirdly, that there is no material to justify the amounts awarded by learned Tribunal. These are the only submissions made before us. 7. The admitted position is that Punai, Haren and Deben, the deceased, were walking by the grassy portion on the extreme left side of the road. These are the only submissions made before us. 7. The admitted position is that Punai, Haren and Deben, the deceased, were walking by the grassy portion on the extreme left side of the road. The claimants witnesses said in one voice that while the three victims were so proceeding the erring truck knocked them down and rolled down into the field on the left hand side. Claimants witness No. 2, Bhodai Chutia, confirms that while the three persons were walking on the grassy portion on their left, which is the left side of the road, the Assam Rifles vehicle came from behind, knocked them down, fell them. In cross-examination the witness said that the vehicle went off the road and fell into the road side field. He also stated in cross-examination that the three persons were found lying on the grassy portion of the road immediately after they were knocked down. C.W. 3, Hemada Hazarika also corroborates the story. The truck was found in the field by the left side of the road. It is, therefore, seen that in a public road three persons were walking by the extreme left side of the road, the truck in question ploughed through them and rolled into the nearby field. This picture we get from the evidence of the witnesses. It is a broad road, as wide as 50 to 60 feet and the vehicle came to the extreme left side and must have had gone out of control and rolled down into the field. The picture placed before us speaks for itself that it was a case of negligent driving. "Res ipsa loquitur" is rule of evidence whereby negligence of a wrong doer may be inferred from mere fact that accident happened provided the character of the accident and the circumstances attending it lead reasonably to believe that in absence of negligence it would not have occurred. There was no cause for the driver of the vehicle to go to the grassy portion of the road on the left side, unless he was negligent. It was driven in such a manner that the driver could not control the vehicle. The very fact that the truck rolled down into the field eloquently speaks that the driver was exclusively responsible for the death of the three persons. It was driven in such a manner that the driver could not control the vehicle. The very fact that the truck rolled down into the field eloquently speaks that the driver was exclusively responsible for the death of the three persons. We, therefore, find from the evidence that it was due to the negligent driving of the truck driver Karna Bahadur which resulted in the death of the three persons. The driver Karna Bahadur Thapa has deposed in Court and stated, inter alia, that the truck belonged to the Assam Rifles and he was the driver of that vehicle. He claimed that the speed of the truck was 20 to 25 K.M. per hour. He also claimed that when those persons suddenly wanted to cross towards the right hand side, he applied brake but could not control it and knocked them down. Thereafter, the truck fell down in the nearby field. There were 4 or 5 Jawans travelling in the said truck but apart from opposite party witness No. 1, Karna Bahadur, the appellants have not examined any witness. Karna Bahadur is responsible for the accident and as such he cannot be treated as disinterested person. The road was straight. If the speed was that low, as deposed to by him, the truck should have stopped at the spot or at least where he knocked down the three persons. But his statement is belied by the fact that the truck rolled down on the left hand side of the road. It is apparent that the driver could not control the truck but proceeded further and being out of control allowed the truck go down the road into the field. Under these circumstances, it is wellnigh impossible for us to accept that the truck was driven at 20 to 25 K.M. per hour. We find no material to support his case that three persons suddenly wanted to cross the road and the accident happened due to their negligence. The crystal clear evidence of all the witnesses for the Claimants eloquently speaks that all the three persons were found on the grassy portion of the road after they had been knock down. The evidence totally belies the story of the driver that the Chowkidar and the two boys negligently wanted to cross the road. The crystal clear evidence of all the witnesses for the Claimants eloquently speaks that all the three persons were found on the grassy portion of the road after they had been knock down. The evidence totally belies the story of the driver that the Chowkidar and the two boys negligently wanted to cross the road. Learned Judge was justified in accepting the evidence of the witnesses for the claimants and to reach the conclusion that the three persons died as a result of negligent driving by Karna Bahadur, witness No. 1 of the opposite party, rejecting the testimony of Karna Bahadur. The finding is just, proper and based on proper appreciation of the evidence. 8. The next contention is that there is no material to show the earning capacity of the three deceased. Insofar as the young boys were concerned they were aged about 12 years at all relevant time. They were school going children. However, we must bear in mind that the rural young persons were potential wage earners. In this part of the land they start working from the age of 13 or 14. They were not wage earners at the relevant time and the amount of compensation has not been awarded on the basis of their earning capacity. Insofar as deceased Punai is concerned, we find one way traffic to show that he was a chowkidar of M. V. School at Kaliapani and his pay was Rs. 180/- per month. There is evidence to show that he used to cultivate and had one Pura of land, that is, four bighas of land. These facts were deposed by the widow C.W. 3, Smt. Hemada and it was not challenged. In fact, she was not cross-examined at all. Punais pay was Rs. 180/- per month and on that basis learned Tribunal has assessed the compensation. There was no rebuttal material produced to show that the income of Punai was not Rs. 180/- per month, as deposed by C. W. 3. In view of the fact that the appellants did not cross-examine the witness we are constrained to hold that the appellants accepted the position that the deceased drew salary of Rs. 180/- per month as Chowkidar of the school. Learned Tribunal calculated the amount of compensation on the basis of the pay drawn by Punai at the rate of Rs. 180/- per month and determined compensation on that basis. 180/- per month as Chowkidar of the school. Learned Tribunal calculated the amount of compensation on the basis of the pay drawn by Punai at the rate of Rs. 180/- per month and determined compensation on that basis. In our opinion, learned Tribunal has unwittingly left out of consideration that apart from the salary Punai had one Pura of arable land. It is a common knowledge that the gross income of one Pura of agricultural land is over Rs. 2000/- per annum. Learned Tribunal should have taken that income into consideration and determine the compensation payable to the widow. In our opinion, the method adopted in determining compensation of the amount of damage was just and proper. The compensation should be the pecuniary loss to the dependants by the death of the person concerned. 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 quantum of compensation the earnings 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. 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 old age or other causes, coming 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. Corpn. v. Sudhakar, AIR 1977 SC 1189 : 1977 Acc CJ 290, 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 Mallets Case, 1969 Acc CJ 312 (HL). We extract the relevant portion of the observations of the Supreme Court in Sudhakar (supra). "..........the lady had 30 years of service before her when she died. 190/- per month. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the award by adopting 20 years multiplier relying on Mallets Case, 1969 Acc CJ 312 (HL). We extract the relevant portion of the observations of the Supreme Court in Sudhakar (supra). "..........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 Tribunals award cannot, therefore, be challenged as too low though it was not based on proper ground." In Manjushri Raha v. B.L. Gupta, AIR 1977 SC 1158 : 1977 Acc CJ 134 the deceased was aged 37 years who died in a bus accident. His monthly salary was Rs. 600/-. The Tribunal awarded compensation of 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. 900/- at the age of 45 before his superannuation. 9. In the instant case, learned Tribunal left aside the earning of the deceased from the paddy land. The net income per annum out of the agricultural land was over Rs. 1000/- and from that income the dependents received at least Rs. 50/- per month. To determine the quantum of compensation learned Tribunal took the statistic salary of Rs. 180/- per month, as if it were fixed one. Learned Tribunal held that only half of the amount was spent on the dependents. We have strong doubt. A family of three could not have survived unless at least Rs. 110/- per month out of Rs. 180/- was spent on the dependents. Learned Tribunal, however, calculated the monthly loss at Rs. 90/- and the annual loss was calculated at Rs. 1000/-. The deceased was aged 30 years at all relevant time and learned Tribunal considered that the age of superannuation was 58 years and accordingly calculated the gross loss at Rs. 28,000/-. 180/- was spent on the dependents. Learned Tribunal, however, calculated the monthly loss at Rs. 90/- and the annual loss was calculated at Rs. 1000/-. The deceased was aged 30 years at all relevant time and learned Tribunal considered that the age of superannuation was 58 years and accordingly calculated the gross loss at Rs. 28,000/-. He also took into consideration the ponderable factors like, the possibility of natural death, the possibility, of his incapacity of supporting the dependents and awarded a very modest amount of Rs. 21,000/- as compensation. We are of the firm opinion that by any standard the award of Rs. 21,000/- cannot be said to be high. We reject the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that Tribunal determined the compensation without following the golden rule of calculation of compensation in Motor Accident cases. In our opinion, learned Tribunal followed the correct principle but assessed less compensation than what the widow should have been entitled. We also reject the plea that there was no material to show the income and/or source of income of the deceased Punai. 10. Insofar as the deceased Haren and Deben are concerned they were school going children aged 12 years. They were potential wage earners. It is a common knowledge that village lads do a lot of domestic work and field assistance to the parents boost the family income. Almost every village boy earns and learns. Two potential bread earners died in harness. The amount of compensation assessed at Rs. 7000/- is very low by all standard. If we merely glance at the Government of India, Ministry of Railways Notification No. 82/TGII/1026/22/IRA dated 19-5-82, we find that ex gratia payment for the death of minors above the age of 5 up to the age of 12 years has been fixed at Rs. 25,000/- per child. It thus appears that the minimum compensation for the death of a young person aged between five to twelve years, in the event of his death in a railway accident, is Rs. 25,000/-, no matter whether the accident was due to the negligence of the railway or not. In the instant case, therefore, the award of compensation of Rs. 7,000/- each awarded to the mother of the children killed in the accident, caused by the negligent act of the driver is by no standard high. 25,000/-, no matter whether the accident was due to the negligence of the railway or not. In the instant case, therefore, the award of compensation of Rs. 7,000/- each awarded to the mother of the children killed in the accident, caused by the negligent act of the driver is by no standard high. In our opinion, the compensation should have been much higher. If we turn to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1982 (Act No. 47 of 1982), we find that the principle of no fault liability to pay compensation in respect of death or disablement arising out of a motor accident has been incorporated in the Act and a fixed sum of Rs. 15,000/- has been determined as compensation payable in case of death and a sum of Rs. 5000/- has been fixed in respect of permanent disablement of any person involved in the accident. In short, in the event of death of any person involved in a motor accident the claimant is entitled to compensation fixed at Rs. 15,000.00 In such cases no distinction has been made between the king and the pauper, the affluents and the beggers, and no discrimination has been made regarding age, sex and the earning capacity of the deceased. It is now the statutory right of the claimant to get at least that amount in the event of death of the person involved in a motor accident. Similarly, we find that even where the railways are not negligent for the accident yet the claimant, in the event of death of a child aged between 5 to 12 years, is entitled to compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. The question of negligence on the part of the railways is not a relevant factor for granting compensation. Situated thus, we are of the view that in the instant case the children boosted the family income, they were potential bread winners and by and under the standard fixed by the Parliament in respect of motor accident and the notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways just alluded to, the amount of compensation awarded @ Rs. 7000/- apiece to the mothers of young persons was on a very low side. 11. In Sudhakar ( AIR 1977 SC 1189 ) (supra) their Lordships awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000/- when a young boy aged about 4 years sustained a thigh injury. 7000/- apiece to the mothers of young persons was on a very low side. 11. In Sudhakar ( AIR 1977 SC 1189 ) (supra) their Lordships awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000/- when a young boy aged about 4 years sustained a thigh injury. In that case there was every possibility of the deformity being removed by surgical operation when the boy grew to be 16 years. But the other possibilities were very much there. The boy was the son of a rich man. If a rich persons son could get Rs. 20,000/- as damages or compensation for injuries sustained we feel that the poor and bereaved mothers of the boys killed in the accident could reasonably be Rs. 25,000/- each, on the basis of amount determined by the Government of India in the Notification alluded to, or, at least Rs. 15,000/- each, as provided in the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1982. However, the compensation has been worked out by the Tribunal at Rs. 7000/- for the death of each boy. We are of the firm opinion that the compensation awarded by the learned,Tribunal was on a very low side. 12. We revert back to the case of compensation awarded to the widow of Punai Chowkidar and consider the same in the light of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1982 and the Notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways (supra). We are of the view that the amount awarded is very low. When a sum of Rs. 15,000/- has been determined as the amount of compensation payable to the claimant in the event of death arising out of the use of the vehicle, even where there is no negligence on the part of the driver or user of the vehicle, and, when the Notification of Government of India, Ministry of Railways (supra) has fixed compensation payable at Rs. 50,000/- in the event of death of a person arising out of a railway accident even where there is no fault of the railways, we are of the view that the amount of compensation determined and awarded by the learned Tribunal to the poor widow of Punai is extremely low. 13. 50,000/- in the event of death of a person arising out of a railway accident even where there is no fault of the railways, we are of the view that the amount of compensation determined and awarded by the learned Tribunal to the poor widow of Punai is extremely low. 13. We feel that in view of the minimum amount of compensation determined by the Government of India, as well as the change in law and perceptible change in the rule of life and life style of our people, it has become imperative to reconsider the principles relating to the method for determination of compensation in fatal accident cases under the Act and the Rules. 14. We are stunned to learn that the appellants have not as yet paid the amounts of compensation to the poor widow and the bereaved mothers. 15. For the reasons set forth above we dismiss the appeals with costs, which we assess at Rs. 1000/- per appeal. We also award interest at the rate of 6 per centum per annum from the date of the institution of the claim cases till the amounts are paid by the appellants to the claimants. 16. In the result, the appeals are dismissed with costs. Appeals dismissed.