JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - This appeal is by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. who was opposite party No. 3 before the Tribunal assailing the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal. 2. The respondents filed the claim petition on account of the death of one Prahallad Pradhan who was a Lecturer in the College at Talcher and on the date of accident while he was coming on his motor cycle, the driver of truck OSS 1998 negligently caused the accident as a result of which the death occurred. The amount of compensation claimed by the claimants was Rs. 4,00,000/-. Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 were ex parte and opposite party No. 3, the present appellant, though had filed a written statement but did not contest at the time of hearing. On consideration of the entire materials on record, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the average monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 2,000/- per month, i.e., Rs. 24,000/- per annum and after deducting the personal expenses the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased would have given Rs. 1,000/- per month to the dependants. Thereafter taking the age of the deceased which was 32 years into consideration and on the basis of multiplier system of compensation, the Tribunal granted compensation for multiplier of 25 years and thereby came to hold that the claimants were entitled to Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation. 3. Mr. Roy, the learned Counsel for the appellant, does not challenge any of the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the monthly income of the deceased or even with regard to the amount which the deceased was giving to the dependants, but he contends that in view of the fact that the age of the deceased was 32 years, the Tribunal erred in law in granting 25 years' multiplier. He cites before me a large number of authorities to indicate that where the age of the deceased has been 32, it is either 15 or 16 years' multiplier that has been applied. [See Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs. Satinder Sharma, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Chandreshwar Mishra and Others, State of Haryana v. Uma Sharma 1984 ACJ 485 (P&H); Om Prakash Dalmia Vs. Smt. Bina Saha and Others, Sagar Chand Phool Chand Jain Vs. Santosh Gupta and Others, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. [See Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs. Satinder Sharma, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Chandreshwar Mishra and Others, State of Haryana v. Uma Sharma 1984 ACJ 485 (P&H); Om Prakash Dalmia Vs. Smt. Bina Saha and Others, Sagar Chand Phool Chand Jain Vs. Santosh Gupta and Others, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kanti Devi and Others, and Dina Nath and Others Vs. Tarn Chand and Sons and Others ]. The Supreme Court in the case of Bishan Devi and Another Vs. Sirbaksh Singh and Others, had granted 16 years' multiplier where the age of the deceased was 35 years and several High Courts also had adopted 16 years' multiplier while the age of the deceased was either 34 or 35 years. [See Agya Kaur and Others Vs. General Manager, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and Others, Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ashwani Kumar and Others, ; Gurbachan Kaur Vs. Savita Kapoor and Others, Shanta Nagpal and Others Vs. Bhagwan Singh and Others, and Nirmal Bhutani and Others Vs. Haryana State and Another. Even sometimes where the age of the deceased was 36,18 years' multiplier has been adopted, as would appear from the case of Sunanda Maudgal Vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and Another. Thus, there cannot be any hard and fast rule and there is no absolute method of fixation. However, bearing in mind all the decisions referred to above, I think the award of 25 years' multiplier is excessive and, therefore, I shall reduce the same to 20 years' multiplier. The claimants would, therefore, get compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,40,000/-. The award of compensation made by the Tribunal is reduced to the aforesaid amount. Out of the said Rs. 2,40,000/-, applicant Pankajini will get Rs. 80,000/-; applicants Lopamudra and Sweta Padma will get Rs. 48,000/- each; and claimant-applicants Surendra Pradhan and Susila Pradhan will get Rs. 32,000/- each. 4. This miscellaneous appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed