JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, J. - The grant of compensation to the legal representative of one Ananda Prasad Mohanty, who died in a motor accident on 2-12-1981, is the subject-matter of these two appeals-one by the owner and the other by the claimants (legal representatives of the deceased). 2. Ananda Prasad Mohanty was a Sub-Assistant Engineer working in the Irrigation and Power Department of the Government of Orissa. On 21-2-1981, he was travelling on duty in a Government jeep bearing registration number ORP 2137. The vehicle was proceeding from Rengali to Dhen-kanal. Near Baghlunda it dashed against a heap of earth and fell off the road. Ananda was seriously injured and succumbed at the spot. An application was filed u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act by his mother, widow and minor children claiming compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs for the pecuniary loss etc. sustained by them. It was alleged that the accident was due to the rashness and negligence of the driver. 3. The owner of the vehicle was the State Government. Written statement was filed on its behalf challenging the allegation that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently. The other allegation, namely, Ananda was a Sub-Assistant Engineer and was drawing a sum of Rs. 1,076/-per month at the relevant time, was not controverted. The Tribunal applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur held that the vehicle was being driven negligently. It is astonishing that though the driver was examined as O.P.W. No. 2, his evidence did not throw any light as to how the accident took place. He simply stated that the vehicle was in speed and it toppled. Rightly, therefore, in course of argument the State did not seriously assail the finding of the tribunal that the vehicle was being driven negligently. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs 1,04,000/- as compensation and apportioned the same amongst the claimants. The quantum of compensation awarded is the subject-matter of challenge in these two appeals-one by the owner and the other by the claimants. 4. The claimants allege that the determination is low whereas the owner says that the award is excessive. 5. It is needless to reiterate that an endeavour should be made to fix just compensation which should represent the pecuniary loss to the legal representatives. The determination cannot be exact or accurate. It must necessarily be an estimate or even partly conjecture. The claimants allege that the determination is low whereas the owner says that the award is excessive. 5. It is needless to reiterate that an endeavour should be made to fix just compensation which should represent the pecuniary loss to the legal representatives. The determination cannot be exact or accurate. It must necessarily be an estimate or even partly conjecture. There is scope for some arbitrariness to creep in. But, endeavour should be made to reach the figure by balancing in one hand the loss to the claimants of the future pecuniary benefit and in the other any pecuniary advantage which comes to the claimants by reason of death. In course of time, the principles have, however, been fairly settled. 6. Ananda was aged 39 at the time of his death. Ordinarily, he would have served under the Government for 19 years during which he would have prospects of promotion to higher posts. His scale of pay underwent revisions after his death. Further revisions are bound to come having regard to the soaring inflation and loss of value of the rupee year after year and the rise of the price index. He was a Sub Assistant Engineer. No material has been brought on record to show that he had a bad service record. Taking all these aspects into account and especially the evidence of O.P. W. No. 1 to the effect that Ananda would have retired with a gross salary of Rs. 2200/- per month, the Tribunal determined the income of the deceased at Rs. 1500/- per month, on an average, Sitting in appeal, 1 am loathe to interfere with the said finding. In my view, that is also on the low side. 7. The next question is, what has been the pecuniary loss to the claimants ? Ananda had three minor children-two sons and one daughter. He had to spend for their education, maintenance, daughter's marriage, maintenance of his wife and mother. The Tribunal has determined the pecuniary loss at Rs. 1,000/- per month which appears to be just and fair. The Tribunal however quantified the compensation payable by applying a multiplier of 10 years and determined the pecuniary loss at Rs. 1,20,000/-. Applying 10 years purchase rule in the facts and circumstances appears to me to be unfair. Ananda was 39 and had 19 years of service. 1,000/- per month which appears to be just and fair. The Tribunal however quantified the compensation payable by applying a multiplier of 10 years and determined the pecuniary loss at Rs. 1,20,000/-. Applying 10 years purchase rule in the facts and circumstances appears to me to be unfair. Ananda was 39 and had 19 years of service. His widow was merely 34 and was expected to live 30 to 35 years more. Having regard to the span of life, as has been judicially determined as 70 years, she would live 35 years more and was to be provided for. I, therefore, determine the compensation on the basis of 12 years purchase and quantity the compensation payable at Rs. 1,44,000/- wherefrom shall be deducted the amount of compensation received under the Group Insurance Scheme and the assistance given for funeral and obsequies. The compensation payable, therefore, comes to Rs. 1,28,100/-which is rounded off to Rs. 1,28,000/-. The claimants would also be entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from 11-8-1981, i.e., the date of the application, till payment. If the payment is not made within two months from today, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of application. Out of the amount of compensation and interest deposited, a sum of Rs. 60,000/- shall be invested in the purchase of National Savings Certificate Sixth Series in the name of Sima Mohanty. The following sums be deposited in Fixed Deposit Accounts in some Nationalised Bank: (i) A sum of Rs. 25,000/- in the name of each of the sons, namely, Amitabh Mohanty and Arabinda Mohanty. (ii) A sum of Rs. 15,000/- in the name of Laxmipriya Mohanty. (iii) A sum of Rs. 20,000/- in the name of Premalata Mohanty. Balance shall be paid to Premalata Mohanty to defray the expenditure incurred in the litigation. The Tribunal should issue directions to the Nationalised Bank in which the Fixed Deposit Accounts are to be opened that the same accounts shall not be permitted to be withdrawn or be encumbered in any manner howsoever for a period of five years. 8. In the result, Miscellaneous Appeal No. 294 of 1985 is dismissed and Misc. Appeal No. 302 of 1985 is allowed in part. Consolidated hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 250/-.