JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal must succeed on a very short point that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal of 15 years is against the principles laid down by this Court in the following cases: (1) Santra Bai v. Prahlad, 1985 ACJ 762 (Rajasthan) . (Age of the deceased was 28 years and 40 years' multiplier was allowed). (2) Sri Ram v. Kishan Lal S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1979; decided on August 5, 1985 (Age of the deceased was 31 years and multiplier allowed was 39 years). (3) Prem Kanwar v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, 1986 RLR 211 (Age of the deceased was 39 years and multiplier of 30 years was allowed). 2. In the above decisions after a thoughtful and careful consideration and discussion of the entire case law, I have come to the conclusion that the longevity of life has increased now in India on account of better conditions of health and hygiene, nutrition and medical facilities and the normal expectancy of life is between 65 years to 70 years now and, therefore, the multiplier of 15 or 20 years which applied earlier has become obsolete. 3. In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Pista Aggarwal, 1986 ACJ 23 (Rajasthan) , there is detailed discussion on this point in paragraphs 32,33,35,68 and 71. Paragraphs 67,68,69,70 and ultimately 72 are relevant for the purpose of the principle of multiplier and its evolution in various decisions. 4. In this case the age of the deceased at the time of death was 32 years and ultimately the multiplier of 28 years was allowed. 5. Paragraphs 67, 68, 69 and 70 in Pista Aggarwal's case, 1986 ACJ 23 (Rajasthan), read as under: "(67) The Delhi High Court in Chameli Wati v. Delhi Municipal Corporation, 1982 ACJ 300 (Delhi) , treated the expectancy of the age of parents at 70-75 years and allowed Rs. 38,522/- when the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 25 years. The Delhi High Court in Hazari Lal v. Dharam Pal Singh, 1981 ACJ 439 (Delhi) , in the case of death of student aged 17 years in appeal enhanced the award to Rs. 22,000/- from Rs. 38,522/- when the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 25 years. The Delhi High Court in Hazari Lal v. Dharam Pal Singh, 1981 ACJ 439 (Delhi) , in the case of death of student aged 17 years in appeal enhanced the award to Rs. 22,000/- from Rs. 10,000/- (68) On the study of the judgments of the apex court we find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti, 1966 ACJ 57 (SC) , applied multiplier of 15 years. In Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. v. Northern India Transporters' Insurance Co. Ltd., 1971 ACJ 206 (SC) , again the Supreme Court applied the multiplier of 15 years; in M.P.S.R.T. Corporation v. Sudhakar, 1977 ACJ 290 (SC) , applied the multiplier of 20 years and in Manjushri Raha v. B.L Gupta, 1977 ACJ 134 (SC) , calculated the income upto the age of 65 years including the period of pension commencing from the superannuation age of 55 years. (69) In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi, 1980 ACJ 55 (SC) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that the determination of the compensation should be based on liberal approach. The Allahabad High Court in Mahabir Prasad Goel v. Guru Saran Singh, 1983 ACJ 99 (Allahabad) , applied the multiplier of 24 years and the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Rita Arora v. Salig Ram, 1975 ACJ 420 (HP) , applied the multiplier of 33 years. This Court in Bhagchand Panju's case, 1975 ACJ 9 (Rajasthan), adopted multiplier of 35 years, when the deceased was of 26 years of age. (70) A bird's-eye view of the various judgments would show that there cannot be any ceiling and it is always dependent upon a court to find out what should be the multiplier in a given case. It is true that in the Full Bench case of the Punjab and Haryana High Court as referred to by Mr. Sharma above, general application of the multiplier, namely, 16 years, was applied. The conclusion of their Lordships leaves no manner of doubt that 'the basic figure of annual dependency should be multiplied by a suitable multiplier which will take into consideration the life expectancy of the deceased as well as the average life expectancy of the dependents amongst other relevant factors'. This principle is salutary and should be given effect to while fixing a suitable multiplier. This principle is salutary and should be given effect to while fixing a suitable multiplier. Life expectancy, therefore, has to be kept in view while adopting a multiplier. Adoption of 16 as multiplier by their Lordships of the Full Bench, it seems, has overlooked this important aspect of the principle. They did not mean to lay down the multiplier of 16 as a rule of universal application for all the cases, by making it a blind rule of thumb." 6. In the present case, since the age was only 22 years, the multiplier should be of 40 years. In view of this, the compensation allowed would be: 115 X 12 X 40 = Rs. 55,200/- 7. In Chameli Wati v. Delhi Municipal Corporation, 1985 ACJ 645 (SC) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the interest on the compensation from the date of judgment allowed by the Tribunal was altered to interest at 12 per cent from the date of application till payment. 8. The result of the above discussion is that the Appellants would get compensation of Rs. 55,200/-. However, the liability of the insurance company would be limited to Rs. 50,000/-, so far as the principal amount is concerned and interest would be payable at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of application till the date of payment. If any payments have been made, then the interest would cease to be calculated on that amount. The parties would bear their own costs of this appeal as Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not appeared and Mr. S.C. Srivastava appearing on behalf of the insurance company is very fair in his approach.Appeal allowed. *******