JUDGMENT : K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J. - The State has preferred this Misc. Appeal against the award of compensation given by the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Northern Division, Sambalpur in Misc. (A) Case No. 15 of 1980. 2. The short facts leading to the accident claim case were that the deceased Sibanaray in Ram was working as a mason under a contractor and was working in the SamaIs Barriage Project. On the day of the accident, namely, on 1-3-1980, the deceasad was travelling in the truck on its dalla without any permission from the driver of the truck. The truck admittedly, belonged to the State of Orissa which capsised on Talcher-Kaniha- Rengali road at a place of about four miles from Rengali at about 1. 00 P.M. in which "Satyanarayan sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. Opp. party filed objection admitting the accident to have taken place on 3-3-1980 at 3. 30 P. M but has asserted in the objection filed that the deceased was travelling in the truck inspire of the protest of the driver and, as such, the opp. parties were not responsible for the accident. The claimant examined 3 witnesses who deposed regarding the income of the deceased at the time of death and stated about the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the truck. According to the claimants, the age of the deceased at the time of death was 26 years and his income was Rs. 450/- per month which he was cerning as a mason under a contractor working in the Samala Barrage Project, as stated earlier. 3 The Tribunal found that the age of the deceased was 30 years at the time of death and assessed Rs. 200/- per month being his contribution to the family. The Tribunal applied 15 years multiplier and awarded Rs. 36,000/- as compensation to the respondents with interest calculated at 10% per annum from the date of the application till the date of payment. The State of Orissa has preferred appeal against this award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 7-6-1986 on the ground that the State of Orissa is in no way responsible vicariously for the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as the driver was not authorised to tarry any passenger in a Government vehicle. That the State being sovereign is not also vicariously liable for such action. That the State being sovereign is not also vicariously liable for such action. A cross-appeal has also been filed by the claimants that the income as found by the Tribunal was wrong being based on no evidence and that even if the age of the deceased may be taken as 30 years at the time of his death, 15 years multiplier is no; to be applied to the present case and the claimants are entitled to a higher multiplier. 4. The law is well-settled that the State is liable for damages occasioned by the negligence of its servants by applying the principle of vicarious liability. Government, however, is not liable for the tortious act which has been committed by its servants in exercise of its sovereign powers. The plea of sovereign immunity can be available where the powers can be exercised only by a sovereign or a person by virtue of delegation of such powers to him. So, when the 'immunity is claimed by the State against a claim, it his to be looked into if the act committed by the servants was in exercise of its sovereign powers. In determinition of this question as to whether the employer is exercising the sovereign power and as such the claim of immunity should be allowed to them, the nature of the act, the transaction in course of which it is committed and the nature of employment of the person committing it have to be considered. This Court in a decision, reported in State of Orissa and Another Vs. Mst. Amruta Dei and Others, held thus : ".........The principle that emerges is that by "sovereign power" what is meant, is power which cannot be lawfully exercised except by a sovereign or a private individual delegated by a sovereign to exercise the same." In the present case, while the driver was driving the Government vehicle, it cannot be said that the driver was doing a sovereign act and, as such, the State could not be made liable vicariously for the compensation. On the other hand, the State is liable vicariously for the tortious act, if any, committed by the driver in course of employment. On the other hand, the State is liable vicariously for the tortious act, if any, committed by the driver in course of employment. In another decision (State of Orissa v. Rebati Tiwari), reported in 64 (1987) CLT 79 this Court held thus after consideration of a number of decisions on the point: ".........The liability of the master extends to all torts committed by the servant when purporting to act in the course of such business as he was authorised or held out as authorised to transact on account of his master. If the servant is acting within the scope of bis authority, his master is liable whether he receives the benefit of the wrongful act or not." Mere the State of Orissa, the owner of the truck must be held liable for the purported action of the driver whether the same was for master's benefit or not as the wrongful act was committed in course of the driver's employment. In a decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court, reported in Jiwan Dass Roshan Lal Vs. Karnail Singh and Others, the Court was considering the case of death of a passenger in a goods truck who was allowed to board the same by its driver in contravention of the rules contained in Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules. The accident in which the said passenger succumbed to his injuries took place due to negligence and careless driving of the driver. It was held that since the driver was not acting in course of his employment being not authorised to carry the deceased in the truck as a passenger, the owner of the truck could not be held to be vicariously liable for the tortious act of the driver. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice who delivered the judgment for the Bench went on to say that "the deceased must be deemed in law to be a trespasser; the owner, therefore, owed no duty of care to the deceased. This Court in the judgment reported in 64 (I987) CLT 78 did not follow the above mentioned decision and deferred from the same. In Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Ltd, reported in AIR 1986 Kar 63 it was held that giving a lift to a passenger by the driver is an act done by the driver in course of his employment, and the owner of the tanker was vicariously liable to pay the compensation. In Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Ltd, reported in AIR 1986 Kar 63 it was held that giving a lift to a passenger by the driver is an act done by the driver in course of his employment, and the owner of the tanker was vicariously liable to pay the compensation. In that case the driver of the tanker gave lift to two passengers who were fatally injured due to his negligence This Court has followed this principle established in Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Ltd. and held that the master is liable in the circumstances. 5. In view of the law discussed above, I accordingly hold that in the present case, the State of Orissa is liable for the negligence of its driver who was driving the vehicle negligently, rashly and carelessly at the time of accident which fact is not challenged in this appeal. Accordingly; I do not find any merit in this appeal preferred by the State which is dismissed with costs to the respondents. 6. Coming to the cross-appeal filed by the claimants, the claimants have not challenged the age of the deceased and have been satisfied with the findings that he was of 30 years of age at the time, of his death. All that the learned counsel appearing for the respondents urged in this cross-appeal are as follows : That the assessment of the monthly income by the Tribunal was wrong in as much as there is no basis to hold that the income of the deceased was only Rs. 350/- and that he was spending Rs. 5/- per day only for his own maintenance and was contributing Rs. 200/- per month to the family which consisted of his wife, a minor daughter and a minor son, for their maintenance and applied 15 years multiplier in calculating the compensation due to the claimants which according to the claimants is not reasonable. Coming to the amount of income of the deceased per month at the time of death, the claimants have led evidence. The widow of the deceased examined herself as PW 1 who stated that the income of the husband was between Rs. 18/- to Rs. 25/- per day as a mason. One of the friends of the deceased who was the President of the Labour Union has stated that his income was Rs 15/-" to Rs. 16/- per day. The widow of the deceased examined herself as PW 1 who stated that the income of the husband was between Rs. 18/- to Rs. 25/- per day as a mason. One of the friends of the deceased who was the President of the Labour Union has stated that his income was Rs 15/-" to Rs. 16/- per day. When there is no evidence contrary to the evidence adduced by the claimants that a mason in the year 1980 by any normal standard would be getting the daily income of of Rs.15/-, the claim of Rs.450/- by the claimants should have been accepted by the Tribunal which he has not done. I accordingly modify the findings of the trial Court and hold that the income of the deceased was Rs. 450/- per month out of which Rs. 200/- was being spent by him for his personal expenses and the balance of Rs. 250/-was his monthly contribution towards the maintenance of his family. 7. Now the question arises, what would be the multiplier that should be applied to the present case. In a decision reported in 69 (1990) CLT 348 in grant of compensation on the basis of the multiplier system, this Court considered various decisions of different High Courts and ultimately came to hold that no hard and fast rule can be made in this regard. Different High Courts have applied different years multiplier when the due of the death of deceased remains the same Obviously, they have taken into consideration various factors. In the case The New India Assurance Co. v. Pankajini Pradhan and Ors., reported in 69 (1990) CLT 34 the Court found that the deceased was 32 years of age at the time of death and considered the grant of 25 years multiplier to be excessive and reduced it to 20 years multiplier in assessing compensation. While applying this multiplier system, expectation of life is also to be taken into consideration, and I apply 20 years multiplier following the decision of the single Judge of this Court, reported in 69 (1990) CLT 348 (supra) and award a sum of Rs. 60,000/- as compensation to the claimants out of which 2/5th shall be given to the widow and 3/1 th to each of the children with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of application i.e. 3-10-1980 till the date of final payment. 60,000/- as compensation to the claimants out of which 2/5th shall be given to the widow and 3/1 th to each of the children with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of application i.e. 3-10-1980 till the date of final payment. If the claimant Nos 2 and 3 are still minors, the amount of compensation awarded in their favour will be received by their mother as the mother guardian. In modification of the order of the Tribunal, it is directed that out of the said amount now awarded in this Misc. Appeal, the claimant No. 1 will be allowed to draw Rs. 25,000/- for herself and for her children and the rest will be kept in the bank, in fixed deposit for a period of six years, the interest of the same being made available to them periodically. In the meanwhile, if any amount has already been withdrawn by the claimant No. 1 and the court-fee payable amounting to Rs. 287,50, if any, will be deducted from the amount now to be paid in cash to the claimant No, 1. The cross-appeal is accordingly allowed and the cost of this cross-appeal will be borne out by the parties themselves. Final Result : Allowed