JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J. - This is an appeal by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs. 36,000/- to the legal representatives of the deceased. To put the facts briefly, these are as follows: 2. On 29-12-1975 at about 7-00 P.M. the appellant's Bus U.P.B. 6796 coming from Agra side hit a stationery private bus No. UPT 673 causing injuries to three persons and resulting in the death of the conductor of the private bus Nafees Mohammad. lt is alleged that the private bus had developed some disorder and was being repaired by the side of the road by a mechanic Naseem while the conductor Nafees Mohammad deceased and driver Bashir were assisting him in the work. The private bus was hit with such a great impact that it was dragged to about 25 to 30 feet. The bus was being rashly and negligently driven and as such a sum of Rs. 75,000/- was claimed by the mother, widow and a minor child of the deceased. 3. The case of the corporation was that the bus was standing on the wrong side of the road and due to winter it was quite dark at 7-00 P.M. The deceased suddenly appeared from behind the stationery bus and was hit on account of his own negligence. It is admitted in evidence that the corporation Bus was also defective and was returning to the workshop for repairs. 4. Apart from the widow, three eye witnesses have been examined. PW 2 is the S.I. who prepared the site plan and also proved the report lodge with the police PW 3 is the brother, of the deceased. He was an eye witness of the accident and has also proved the photographs taken soon after the accident, P.W. 4 is an eye witness of the accident while PW. 5 is the mechanic who himself was injured in the accident. The presence of these witnesses can not be doubted and they have fairly supported the claimants case. 5. From the side of the Corporation, only the driver M. Prasad has been examined but it is difficult to give any credence to his statement. 5 is the mechanic who himself was injured in the accident. The presence of these witnesses can not be doubted and they have fairly supported the claimants case. 5. From the side of the Corporation, only the driver M. Prasad has been examined but it is difficult to give any credence to his statement. Even if the private bus was standing on the wrong side, it was not in any case on the main road and there was no occasion for the driver of the Corporation Bus to leave the main road and strike against a stationery bus which was undergoing repairs there. The very fact that after the impact: the stationery private bus was dragged to a distance of 25 to 30 feet is in itself sufficient to establish that the corporation Bus was being driven at a great speed. Thus I find hardly any reason to disagree with the finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding the negligence on the part of the driver of the Corporation bus. 6. The main emphasis in the argument was on the quantum of compensation awarded. It is urged that in view of the finding that the dependency of the family of the deceased was to the extent of Rs. 100/- per month, the award of Rs. 36,000/- is excessive, firstly because instead of 25% a deduction of 33% should have been made and secondly the multiplier theory should have been employed to determine the compensation amount. According to Sri Sharma, the Supreme Court has taken the view that in the case of death of a young man, the multiplier should be 16 years purchase i.e. the amount that be would have given to the family during a period of 16 years. Thus according to him when the compensation is calculated at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month it comes to Rs. 1200/-per year and multiplied by 16, the amount comes to Rs 19,200/- only. A number of cases has been cited by him in support of his submission. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the claimants has urged that the dependency of Rs. 100/- as determined by the court is erroneous. According to him the deceased was getting a salary of Rs. A number of cases has been cited by him in support of his submission. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the claimants has urged that the dependency of Rs. 100/- as determined by the court is erroneous. According to him the deceased was getting a salary of Rs. 250/- per month and according to his widow, apart from this, he used to earn some more money everyday to meet his overhead expenses and the entire amount of salary used to be handed over to her for running the house. She has been supported in this stand by PW 3 who is the brother of the deceased. In case, Rs. 250/- was being spent in the house, a part of it must have been spent for the deceased also and thus the family dependency can not be taken to be Rs. 250/- per month. Learned Counsel for the claimant has very can did accepted that Rs. 150/- per month should be taken as the dependency of the family and compensation should be awarded on that basis. The question is whether the multiplier system has to be applied or the system of number of years purchase should be preferred? Both these systems have their merits and demerits and none of them gives a correct idea of just compensation to be paid. It is said that if the amount of compensation is deposited, the interest earned from it should be sufficient and at that equivalent to the amount to the extent of which the family was dependent on the deceased. In theory this argument may appear to be sound but it is difficult to find a suitable agency where the money may be deposited and interest may be paid monthly to the family. Besides this the family needs are likely to grow as the child grows in age. In that situation, if the deceased had been alive, he might have been inclined to curtail his own expenses and provide more and more money to the family to meet its growing needs or to put in more labour to earn some thing extra for additional requirements of the family. Thus it is not possible to capitalise the earning by a fixed number of years and each case will have to be decided on its own merits. In this case if Rs. Thus it is not possible to capitalise the earning by a fixed number of years and each case will have to be decided on its own merits. In this case if Rs. 150/- is taken to be the monthly dependency and 60 years as the average life expectancy, the deceased was likely to provide Rs. 150/- P.M. for 40 years which comes to Rs. 72,000/-. Making a deduction of 33% from this, the amount of compensation would come to Rs. 48,000/-. If the capitalisation system is adopted, then the amount of compensation would be 150 x 12 x 16= Rs. 28,800/-. The amount of compensation determined by applying these two methods, therefore, shows a widow variance and, therefore, there must be some thing intrinsically wrong with either of the methods or with both of them. However, taking a pragmatic view and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal errs on the right and cannot be said to be either too high or too low. I am, therefore, inclined to accept the same as the just compensation to be awarded in the instant case. 8. In the result, both the appeal and the cross-objection fail and are dismissed accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs in this Court.