JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the act), has been directed by the M. P. State Road transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the corporation) and the Depot managers of Damoh and Jabalpur against the award dated 27th July, 1981, made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Damoh (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal) in Claim Case No. 9 of 1978. ( 2. ) THE deceased Maheshchandra was employed as a cashier in Hindustan commerical Bank at Jabalpur on 27-6-1977, the deceased Maheshchandra along with his wife Smt. Kiran boarded the bus No. 8083 at Sagar for Jabalpur. The said bus belonged to the Corporation and was driven by its driver Brijbihari. When the bus reached Nohta Bridge on Damoh-Jabalpur route, the river Vyarma was in floods. The driver made an attempt to take the bus across the bridge but it was washed away in the mid-stream as a result of which the deceased Maheshchandra and his wife were killed. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who are the parents of the deceased Maheshchandra misc. (F.) Appeal No. 424 of 1981 decided on 3-4-1986 (Jabalpur) arising out of the award passed by A. K. Malviya, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Damoh in Claim and respondents Nos. 3 to 6 who are brothers and sisters of deceased Maheshchandra, made a claim of Rs. 4 lacs as compensation for the deaths of Maheshchandra and his wife Smt. Kiran by contending that Maheshchandra was wedded to Smt. Kiran only on 7-2-1977 and at the time of the accident Maheshchandra was aged about 24 years while his wife Smt. Kiran was aged about 18 years only. It was alleged that the deceased maheshchandra was drawing Rs. 474. 80 p. as his monthly salary, whereas his wife Smt. Kiran was earning Rs. 1,000/- per month from tailoring and knitting. The claimants averred that the driver of the bus of the Corporation was rash and negligent in making an attempt to take the bus across the bridge when the river was in flood, as a result of which the bus was washed away by a strong current along with all the passengers including Maheshchandra and his wife Smt. Kiran, who lost their lives. ( 3. ( 3. ) THE respondents contested the said claim petition by denying the allegation that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent. They took the pleas that the drivers were given instructions that they should not move the bus on the bridge when there was flood and if contrary to these instructions the driver had made an attempt to take the bus across the bridge, the Corporation cannot be made vicariously liable for the damages resulting from the said accident. They, further, pleaded that the driver had taken the bus when the river was not in flood and has crossed almost half of the bridge when it was washed away by a sudden strong current. The Corporation averred that an amount of Rs. 1,000/- was paid to the claimants as ex gratia payment. ( 4. ) THE tribunal, on consideration of evidence on record came to the conclusion that the bus driver was rash and negligent while taking the bus through the bridge when the river was in floods, as a result of which the bus was washed away with its passengers in which Maheshchandra and his wife Smt. Kiran lost their lives. The tribunal also took the view that the deceased Maheshchandra was drawing salary of rs, 474. 80 p. per month out of which he would have, at the most, paid Rs. 150/- per month to their parents and as his father, respondent No. 1, was aged about 53 years and his mother, respondent No. 2, was aged about 48 years, applying the multiplier of 10 awarded a sum of Rs. 18,000/- to them as compensation for the death of their son maheshchandra. As regards, the compensation for the death of Smt. Kiran, wife of deceased Maheshchandra, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 7500/- for the services that may have been rendered by their daughter-in-law. The tribunal, thus, awarded a sum of Rs. 25,500/- and after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as ex gratia payment made an award of a net amount of Rs. 24,500/-with interest at 6 per cent for the deaths of maheshchandra and his wife in favour of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 alone as respondents Nos. 3 to 6 being brothers and sisters of deceased Maheshchandra were not dependants. It is against this award that the appellants have preferred this appeal. ( 5. 24,500/-with interest at 6 per cent for the deaths of maheshchandra and his wife in favour of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 alone as respondents Nos. 3 to 6 being brothers and sisters of deceased Maheshchandra were not dependants. It is against this award that the appellants have preferred this appeal. ( 5. ) THE respondents have also preferred a cross objection for enhancement of the award which shall also be disposed of by this order. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants, first contended that when the bus driver was taking the bus through the bridge, the river was not in flood and that it was only due to a sudden strong current that came when the bus was in the middle of the bridge which washed away the bus and, therefore, no negligence or rashness can be attributed to the driver. He submitted that it was only and case of error of judgment on the part of the driver. On perusal of the evidence, I do not find any substance in this contention because at the time of aforesaid incident the bus was having full load of passengers. The very fact that the entire bus along with the full load of passengers was washed off indicated that the river was in flood and it could not have been washed off because of any sudden strong current In these circumstances, the bus driver acted rashly and negligently in making an attempt to take the bus across the bridge when the river was in spate. In this view of the matter, the tribunal has rightly found the bus driver to be rash and negligent which resulted into fateful accident. ( 7. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants then submitted mat the award of compensation is arbitrary and excessive. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that having regard to the monthly income of the deceased and their ages, the tribunal committed an error in applying the multiplier of 10 and awarding a total compensation of Rs. 25,500/*, which is inordinately low and inadequate. ( 8. ) AS regards, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the compensation is arbitrary and excessive, I find it to be wholly devoid of any force. But, as regards, the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents, I find that there is force in his arguments. 25,500/*, which is inordinately low and inadequate. ( 8. ) AS regards, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the compensation is arbitrary and excessive, I find it to be wholly devoid of any force. But, as regards, the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents, I find that there is force in his arguments. Admittedly, at the time of accident the age of the respondent No. 1 Vishambhardayal Agrawal, father of the deceased Maheshchandra, was 53 years and that of his mother Smt. Lalmani, respondent No. 2, was 48 years. Taking 70 years as the average age, expectancy of life was taken to be 20-22 years and, therefore, their dependency was found for a period of 20-22 years by the tribunal. But on account of uncertainties of life and for lump sum payment, the tribunal adopted the multiplier of 10 which, in my opinion, does not seem to be proper. The principles on which damages are assessed have been stated in various decisions of this Court, after taking into consideration Indian and English authorities. The principles deduced from the said decisions are that the assessment of damages in ordinary cases resolves into estimating proper annual loss or dependency, the multiplicant and selecting the number of years of purchase, the multiplier. The object is to estimate what amount should be awarded so that its income supplemented by drawing on capital may yield the amount of annual dependency during remaining period of dependency or estimated remainder of working life of deceased whichever be shorter. The multiplier selected is not equal to number of years of dependency or to remainder of working life of deceased; it is much less for it takes into account that instead of yearly payment the courts make an award of lump sum payment and that future contingencies may cut short dependency. Having regard to these principles, the selection of multiplier as 10 which is even less than half of the number of years of dependency of the claimants cannot be said to be justified. In my opinion, having regard to future contingencies which may cut short the dependency and accelerated payment in lump sum the multiplier of 12 would be just and fair to be adopted to award compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Maheshchandra. Applying the multiplier of 12 the compensation would work out to Rs. In my opinion, having regard to future contingencies which may cut short the dependency and accelerated payment in lump sum the multiplier of 12 would be just and fair to be adopted to award compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Maheshchandra. Applying the multiplier of 12 the compensation would work out to Rs. 21,600/ -. I accordingly award the said amount to the claimants for the death of deceased Maheshchandra. ( 9. ) THIS brings me to the question of compensation to be awarded to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for the death of Smt. Kiran. The deceased Smt. Kiran was the daughter-in-law of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 being the wife of Maheshchandra, the son of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who had also died in the same accident. There is no dispute that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 alone are the legal representatives of the deceased Smt. Kiran. From the evidence on record, the claimants have not been able to establish that Smt. Kiran was earning anything out of the alleged work of tailoring and knitting. She was only doing the household work. At the time of her death, she was a young lady of 18-19 years old. The question which arises for consideration is as to what loss has been suffered by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 due to her untimely death in accident. It is now well settled that under the Fatal Accidents Act, the damages recoverable in such an action are not limited to the value of money lost or the money value of things lost, but include the monetary loss incurred by replacing services rendered gratuitously by the deceased where there was a reasonable prospect of their being rendered freely in future but for the death. In other words, even the gratuitous services rendered by a member of a family are equivalent to pecuniary benefit for which damages can be claimed under the Fatal Accidents Act, because the word services cannot be construed too narrowly. The question of award of compensation for loss of services of a wife and mother came for consideration in the case of Regan vs. Williamson, (1976) (2) All England Reports 241, in which it has been observed that the word services cannot be narrowly construed. The question of award of compensation for loss of services of a wife and mother came for consideration in the case of Regan vs. Williamson, (1976) (2) All England Reports 241, in which it has been observed that the word services cannot be narrowly construed. It is needless to emphasise that the wife and mother or even a daughter-in-law in Indian Society do not work to set hours and still less, according to any set rule. They in fact remain in constant attendance of the family members which seems to be as such of a service and probably more valuable to the family than the other kinds of services. According to the Indian social structure and way of living the services of a wife, mother or even a daughter-in-law are commonly worth more than those of a house-keeper because they are always available there in the family and thus do far more to the family than any one else employed for the said work. Relying on the two decisions in the case of Barry vs. Humm and Co. , (1915) (1) K. B. 627 and Regan vs. Williamson, (1976) (2) All England Reports 241, a division Bench of this Court in the case of Manoharlal vs. M. P. Electricity Board, 1976 m. P. L. J. 744, also took similar view. ( 10. ) THE principles enunciated in the decisions referred to above can well be applied in the case of daughter-in-law also by construing the word services in a wider sense. On such construction the gratuitous services rendered to the claimants by their deceased daughter-in-law would be equivalent to the pecuniary benefit with which they are deprived of and for which damages can be claimed under the Fatal Accidents Act. ( 11. ) THE method of assessing damages which is usually followed in England is also the method of assessment adopted in India, according to which the net pecuniary loss upon an annual basis has to be calculated and to arrive at the total award by multiplying the figure assessed as the amount of annual dependency by a number of "years purchase", that is, the number of years the benefit was expected to last, taking into consideration the imponderable factors in fixing either the multiplier or the multiplicant. The husband may not be dependent on the wifes income but the basis of assessing the damages payable to the husband for the death of this wife would be similar. See M. P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Sailesh Kumar, AIR 1977 SC 1189 . ( 12. ) AS said earlier, at the time of accident the claimants-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were aged about 53 years and 48 years respectively and thus they were deprived of the services of their daughter-in-law for the rest of the years of expectancy of their lives that is for about 20-22 years, particularly when the respondent No. 1 would have retired at the age of 55 years and where the respondent No. 2 also would have become older and the services of the deceased would have been more valuable and necessary in their old retired age. Taking a moderate view, I value the gratuitous services of the deceased that would have been rendered by her to the claimants equivalent to Rs. 100/- per month that is Rs. 1200/- per year. Although the expectancy of life of the claimants is 20-22 years but having regard to. the uncertainties of life and lump sum payment, I consider that the multiplier of 10 would be just and fair. In the present case, applying the multiplier of 10 the compensation payable to the claimants for the death of Smt. Kiran work out to Rs. 12,000/ -. Thus the total compensation for the deaths of maheshchandra and Smt. Kiran comes to Rs. 33,600/ -. After deducting Rs. 1,000/- as ex gratia payment, a net amount of Rs. 32,600/- is payable to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by the appellants. ( 13. ) IN the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with cost. The cross-objection filed by the claimants-respondents partly succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned award made by the tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellants shall pay Rs. 32,600/- to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as compensation for the death of their son Maheshchandra and his wife Smt. Kiran with interest at 6 per cent per annum as allowed by the tribunal from the date of application. Counsels fee as per schedule, if certified. Appeal dismissed.