Judgement SATHIADEV, J. :- The appeals are preferred by respondent-Corporation in M.A.C.T.O.P. 230 and 253 of 1979 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruchirapalli. The petitioners therein are the respective respondents herein. Parties are referred to as before Tribunal. 2. It was claimed by petitioners that, on 28-12-1978, while they were proceeding in a car MSW 4958 at about 2.15 a.m. near Chinnaru, the express bus TMN 8075 belonging to respondent-Corporation came in opposite direction very fast, and in the process of overtaking two lorries, which were going ahead of it, it dashed against the car Managing Director, T. T. Corpn. v. M. Janardhanam causing damage not only to the car but also caused grievous injuries to the petitioners. Hence, they have filed two O.Ps. claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 and Rs. 2,00,000 respectively. 3. Respondent stated that it was the car which was driven recklessly, and on immediately seeing the approaching car, driver of the bus applied brakes, and the vehicle skidded, and pulled to its right side because of rain, and hence, he managed to stop the bus on the mud portion of road on his right side. 4. On behalf of the respondent-Corporation, it is contended that P.Ws. 1 and 2 being highly interested witnesses, who are avaricious in claiming huge compensation, their evidence ought not to have found acceptance. The driver of the vehicle having fairly stated that the vehicle skidded to the right side of the road, and when it could be only due to rain, the Tribunal ought to have held that the accident was beyond the control of the driver, and hence, there was no rash and negligent driving by him. 5. But, when the evidence of R.W. 1 the driver is looked at, it is scanty. He has stated that he was driving the vehicle on 28-12-1978, and he applied the brakes on seeing the car, and at the time, it was raining, and hence, the bus skidded and landed on the mud portion of the road. He was not able to notice the car coming in the opposite direction. Passengers in the car were hurt, and there were no people passing along the road at that time. In cross-examination, he had stated that the bus went to the mud portion on the right side, and there was drizzling at that time. He was not able to notice the car coming in the opposite direction. Passengers in the car were hurt, and there were no people passing along the road at that time. In cross-examination, he had stated that the bus went to the mud portion on the right side, and there was drizzling at that time. Even earlier, he had stated that the accident was due to skidding. Hence, when respondent had relied upon only this sort of scanty evidence rendered by the driver, and even therein when admissions are there to the effect that the bus had gone to the right side of the road (i.e., wrong side for the bus) the impact having taken place in a place where the bus ought not to have been driven; the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 had found acceptance by the Tribunal. Once it is admitted that the bus was found on the wrong side of the road, the respondent had to explain it properly. The only explanation was that, at that time it was raining, and therefore, the bus skidded. There is no proof about raining or drizzling at the time of the accident. As found by the Tribunal, the accident had taken place at a time when the bus had attempted to overtake two lorries proceeding ahead of it, and because of the rash driving by P.W. 1, it had resulted in P.Ws. 1 and 2 being injured in the said accident. Therefore, this finding is upheld. 6. As for petitioner in O.P. 230 of 1979 is concerned, he had claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000, but Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs. 79,500. He is a contractor who claims to be earning a sum of Rs. 900 monthly. He had filed Exs. A-2 to A-6 to show that he had carried out certain contracts, and the Tribunal found that his monthly income could be arrived at Rs. 600. Mr. Robert Chelliah, learned counsel for the respondent though made an attempt to discredit this claim by stating that there is no certainty in getting contract work right through, taking note of the fact that at that time, he was one of the small contractors, who by way of margin of profit allowed under the contracts taken by him having earned as claimed the fair determination at Rs. 600 monthly, cannot be treated as on the high side. 600 monthly, cannot be treated as on the high side. As to his entitlement to claim compensation, he relies upon the evidence of P.W. 3, the doctor as well as Exs. A 45 to A 47 which are case sheets and X-ray to show that he had suffered a permanent disability in his leg, which restricts his movements. The doctor had opined that he cannot squat on the floor to take food and for toilet purposes, and he can stand at a time only for about half an hour. Hence, the disablement is partial. It is on such proof adduced, the Tribunal had fixed the disability at 50% and held that he would be losing Rs. 300 per month and being aged 40 years, the multiplier could be 20 years. As for pain and suffering, a sum of Rs. 5000 was awarded. On medical expenses, based on Exs. A-17, A-18, A-45 and A-47 it was fixed at Rs. 2500. 7. The main opposition is to the computation of Rs. 72000 on the ground that, when his loss of earnings had been fixed at Rs. 300 monthly, the compensation awarded should be only such amount as would earn for him a sum of Rs. 300 per month and not more. It is contended that, if the said sum of Rs. 72000 is deposited in any public sector undertaking, which is guaranteed by the Government of India or Unit Trust, it would earn interest at the rate of 15% per annum, and monthly a sum of Rs. 900 would be derived straightway i.e., three times of alleged loss. Further, whenever grant of lump sum is awarded, as held by the Supreme Court, one half of it ought to have been deducted, in which event also, he would be setting Rs. 450 per month. 8. In support of the concept of working out compensation on capitalisation basis, the following decisions are relied upon. In Parminder Singh v. Mukatsar Janta Co-op. Trans Soc. Ltd., 1973 Ace CJ 166, a learned single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court held that, when the actual loss suffered by the family could be realised by deposit of the required amount in a Bank, and besides the income being derived, the capital amount will also belong to them, the compensation could be fixed at such amount as would derive income to cover the loss to the family. A similar view was taken in Jagir Kaur v. Uttam Singh Chattar Singh, 1975 Acc CJ 26, by a learned single Judge of Himachal Pradesh High Court. But in United India F and G Insurance Co. v. Indiramma, AIR 1982 Andh Pra 267, a Division Bench took the view that as to what could be the interest derived from a Bank would not be a fair and reasonable a manner of arriving at the compensation, because in S.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, what is contemplated is compensation for the death or injury and not only any substitute for the loss of income. 9. In Jokiram v. Smt. Naresh Kanta, AIR 1977 Punj and Har 214, a Full Bench held that the compensation assessed under S.110B must be 'just' and therefore, the guiding star is, what was the earnings of the deceased, and taking into consideration also the prospective benefits in the form of increments or promotions should be ascertained, after making a deduction of the benefits which may accrue to the dependants as a result of death and also the amount to which the deceased was expected to have spent on his own person. It is this estimate, which will have to be multiplied by the number of years by which life of the deceased is estimated to be cut short. The resultant effect would be the fair capitalised amount of compensation, to which the dependants may be entitled. Every endeavour should be made to make a reasonable conjecture and not a wild speculation as pointed out in Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Subhagwanti, AIR 1966 SC 1750 and C.K. Subramonia Iyer v. Kunhikutti Nair, AIR 1970 SC 376 . 10. A Bench consisting of five learned Judges of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur, 1979 Acc CJ 170 : (AIR 1979 Punj and Har 50), in paragraph 27 had spelt out six aspects which could be taken into account in assessing the compensation. In the Head Note, they have been summarised as follows :- "The following principles were laid down for assessing compensation - (1) Compensation to be assessed is the pecuniary loss caused to the dependants. In the Head Note, they have been summarised as follows :- "The following principles were laid down for assessing compensation - (1) Compensation to be assessed is the pecuniary loss caused to the dependants. No compensation on extraneous considerations like love, affection, mental agony or any such similar consideration - Solatium is alien to the concept of compensation; (2) Just compensation - What is - Annual dependency of the dependants - The basic figure be multiplied by a suitable multiplier; (3) Take in to consideration the number of years of the dependency of various dependants and the number of years by which the life of the deceased was cut short and other various imponderable factors in determining suitable multiplier. (Followed 1969 Acc CJ 312 (HL) and 1977 Acc CJ 290 : ( AIR 1977 SC 1189 ). (4) The method adopted in certain decisions of Punjab High Court of multiplying the amount of annual loss to the dependants with the number of years by which the life has been cut short without anything else cannot be sustained and all those decisions in which this view has been taken are hereby overruled; (5) The interest theory is impracticable and unrealistic; (6) Overgrowing inflation and decrease in money value are also not relevant. 11. In Manjushri Raha v. B.L. Gupta, 1977 Acc CJ 134 : ( AIR 1977 SC 1158 ), the Supreme Court held that, for a person, who has been earning Rs. 620 per month, and aged 37 years, the compensation was fixed at Rs. 1,00,000, and half salary was deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased. In M.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. Bairagarh, Bhopal v. Sudhakar, 1977 Acc CJ 290 : ( AIR 1977 SC 1189 ), the Supreme Court held that the reasonable multiplier could be 20 years in the case of a person, who died at the age of 23. It was impressed upon the High Courts that in assessing damages, factors like uncertainty of life and the fact of accelerated payment that the claimant would be getting as lump sum amount and but for the accident it would have been available in driblets over a number of years should be taken note of. Hence, it was held that allowance must be made for uncertainty, and the total figure scaled down accordingly. Hence, it was held that allowance must be made for uncertainty, and the total figure scaled down accordingly. The deceased might not have been able to earn till the age of retirement for some reason or other like illness or for having to spend more time to look after the family which was expected to grow. Thus the amount assessed has to be reduced. Taking into account these imponderable factors, some element of conjecture is inevitable in assessment of damages. 12. Hence, in the context of the said decisions, in arriving at the compensation leading to a lump sum being computed arithmetically, it would not straightway lead to the total amount being awarded as compensation. As held by the Supreme Court, 'allowances must be made for uncertainty and the total figures scaled down accordingly.' 13. As for the plea that the loss of income could be derived by deposit of the amount in Government guaranteed deposits, such a consideration should not be lost sight of. But for the accident, as held by the Supreme Court, the claimants would be deriving the benefits out of the deceased's earnings, only in driblets over a number of years. On awarding lump sum, it will generate income by prudent and safe investment made. It will be a relevant guiding factor, that could be taken into account. It cannot be the sole basis for arriving at the just compensation. But, instead of depending purely on surmises, speculations, conjectures and the like as to what the claimants should and would do with the lump sum, will be one of the safer guidelines, for finding out how to limit the lump sum payment. The lump sum amount is granted, not for being frittered, and spent away within no time. When large multiplier is arrived at, Court presumes that if the deceased had survived for such a long number of years, he would have assisted his dependents by his monthly earnings or periodical earnings, which would have been available to the family only in smaller sums; and at no point of time, during his lifetime, he would have ever had such a huge amount. Hence, when compensation is awarded in lump sum, it is with the sole intention of helping the dependants of the deceased to get, what they would have got through him if he had been alive. Hence, when compensation is awarded in lump sum, it is with the sole intention of helping the dependants of the deceased to get, what they would have got through him if he had been alive. If the money so granted would, on a fair and normal expectation of the Court yield an income three times or four times of what deceased himself would have provided to the family, then it would be an unreasonable award of compensation to the claimants. If such a course is liberally adopted, it will lead to abusing jurisdiction and claimants would take undue advantage of the unfortunate death of the deceased. In granting compensation, if sound principles are not adhered to, and conjectures and sympathy are to prevail without bearing in mind that this amount ultimately comes out of institutions which hold funds belonging to the predominantly poor of this country, it would lead to arbitrariness. This sort of abuses which are indulged in certain countries leading to claims of astronomical figures, the Indian Society can illafford. When the aim is to compensate to the same extent, to which the deceased would have provided periodically to the family, it would not be improper to bear in mind the likely income derivable from the lump sum as one of the relevant factors. It is significant to note that the lump sum is kept in that if prudent and proper investment is made for the period assumed by Court. Such an approach will reduce area of conjectures, surmises and suppositions etc. It should be the endeavour of Courts to avoid arbitrariness to enter into this arena; failing which, it will lead to large scale discrimination and indefiniteness by Courts. The lesser the area of conjectures, the higher would be the regard for judicial determination of compensation in accident cases. 14. It is pleaded by Mr. Robert Chelliah, that to derive every month a sum of Rs. 300, which the claimant is to have lost every month according to the Tribunal, by investing a sum of Rs. 24000 either in Unit Trust or in any public sector undertakings in the form of fixed deposit, it could be derived by him every month, if he so chooses, or to get it either quarterly or half yearly. 15. Petitioner having claimed that he will be losing every month Rs. 24000 either in Unit Trust or in any public sector undertakings in the form of fixed deposit, it could be derived by him every month, if he so chooses, or to get it either quarterly or half yearly. 15. Petitioner having claimed that he will be losing every month Rs. 900 henceforth till he dies, what he expects in claiming compensation is not to get a lump sum which he would part with in no time. His intention is to see that for the next 20 years also he should keep on getting every month what he is forced to lose. Having claimed compensation on that basis, his intention as to what he is going to do with the amount is thus clear. That is, to retain the amount as it is, and derive income out of it. If any larger amount is awarded, it would result in himself deriving two or three times more than the monthly income, which he has proved to be the loss suffered by him. He cannot be allowed to commercialise at the expense of the party, who was responsible for the accident. 16. As already pointed out, the interest derived cannot be the sole or the only factor to be taken into account, but it would be one of the main relevant factors which could be taken into account by Court so as to reduce the area of conjectures and surmises. If the amount of Rs. 72000 is invested as above stated, he would get a monthly interest of Rs. 900. Investment in the Unit Trust is the safest and is the one which is resorted to by lakhs of citizens in this country. There are other investments, which would yield even double the income and which claimant as contractor would resort to. But 15% being minimum interest now prevailing, fixing compensation at Rs. 72000 will be on a very high side. 17. Apart from this aspect, as held by the Supreme Court repeatedly that, whenever lump sum is granted as compensation, allowances must be made for uncertainties and the total figures should be scaled down accordingly. In this country, as per the statistics of the world development Report 1985 the average expectation of life is 55 years as found in the report of 1983. Petitioner was aged 40, and therefore, a multiplier of 15 is adopted. Assessing the loss at Rs. In this country, as per the statistics of the world development Report 1985 the average expectation of life is 55 years as found in the report of 1983. Petitioner was aged 40, and therefore, a multiplier of 15 is adopted. Assessing the loss at Rs. 300 as fixed by the Tribunal, for fifteen years, the total amount would be Rs. 54000, though he might have better prospects and earned more in which event, the loss would be more. Equally, by taking into account the imponderable factors as pointed out by the Supreme Court, deducting only one third of the lump sum, it would be Rs. 36000. At this juncture, it will be useful to point out that by resorting to interest capitalising method, the compensation of Rs. 24000 would suffice. But yet, it could not be the sole criterion. Hence by taking into account the other guidelines laid down by Courts alongside and more particularly on what has been held by the Supreme Court, only one-third is deducted out of the lump sum. It is in this view, instead of the compensation of Rs. 72000 fixed as loss of income due to partial disability, it is fixed at Rs. 36000. The other items of compensation for pain and suffering, expenses on treatment, etc. are retained as such. Thus, in all, he would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 43500. Hence C.M.A. 415 of 1981 is allowed to this extent, and the memorandum of cross-objection is therefore dismissed, and there will be no order as to costs either in the appeal or in the cross objections. 18. So far as C.M.A. 417 of 1981, is concerned, the petitioner therein was also a P.W. D. and Highways contractor, and he had claimed that his monthly income is Rs. 900. The Tribunal fixed his income also at Rs. 600 by taking into account Exs. A 21 and A 22, being list of payments made by authorities. P.W. 3 the Doctor had spoken about the operation conducted upon him and of the serious disability suffered by him. Movements on the lower right limb had been damaged and restricted and he can stand only with the aid of a stick and it is opined that even by physiotherapy, a permanent disability suffered by him cannot be further improved. He was aged 47, and therefore, a multiplier of 13 had been applied. Movements on the lower right limb had been damaged and restricted and he can stand only with the aid of a stick and it is opined that even by physiotherapy, a permanent disability suffered by him cannot be further improved. He was aged 47, and therefore, a multiplier of 13 had been applied. In the nature of medical evidence adduced, Tribunal held that his earning capacity has been completely reduced to nil. Mr. Robert Chelliah, would submit that this is a far reaching conclusion arrived at, and whatever be the nature of disability suffered in moving about, it should not mean that the claim of compensation should be approached, as if he had suffered death. There is considerable force in this contention because, it is not the case of the Doctor that he is as good as dead. He had suffered certain grievous injuries, but would still be able to carry on different types of activities or avocations and his mental faculty having not been impaired, he would be in a position to earn for his family. Hence, as adopted in the other appeal, the average expectation of life being 55, the multiplier could be only 8 years. Adopting the same loss of monthly income at Rs. 600, as fixed by the Tribunal for 8 years, it comes to Rs. 57600. To get this monthly income, an investment of Rs. 48000 is required. Deducting one third for imponderable factors, it would be Rs. 38400. Hence, bearing in mind that by investing this amount, he would not be able to get the monthly income at the rate of Rs. 600 per month, and also retain the lump sum for the multiplier period, as fixed for the other appellant, the just and fair compensation is fixed at Rs. 48000. For pain and sufferings, and for medical expenses, a sum of Rs. 15000 had been allowed and they are hereby retained. Hence, he is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 63000. 19. Therefore, this appeal is allowed to this extent, and as the compensation amount had been reduced, no cost is awarded. Any excess amount deposited, could be drawn out by the appellant.