R. L. Gupta ( 1 ) ONE Suresh Kanta, deceased mother of appellant was a teacher. On 19. 12. 72, she was standing at a DTC bus stop when respondents truck fatally knocked her down. Appellant applied for compensation to MAC Tribunal who adopted multipler of 20 and dependency at Rs. 200. 00 p. m. and gave award of Rs. 48000. 00 Appellant appealed against this]. After detailing above, judgment is :- ( 2 ) A D. B. of this Court in Dewan Hari Chand v. M. C. D. AIR 1981 Delhi 71 laid down various guidelines for determining the compensation. In para 4 it held, "the law applicable to the claim for compensation is the common law of torts as modified by the statutes in India. The first such modification was made by the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. It is only that Act which provided payment of compensation in favour of the dependents of the deceased killed in a fatal accident. The provisions of Motor Vehicles Act only provide a forum and a procedure for the claim for compensation. " ( 3 ) REGARDING the figure per annum to be fixed as the amount of dependency, it held in para 10, "the dependence of the L. R. s. of the deceased is called in this context dependency. It means the measure of maintenance or support which the dependent received from the deceased. It may be calculated annually. Two methods can be used to calculate it. One is to calculate the actual number of years for which the deceased and the dependent were expected to live and to total up the figure of annual dependency for that number of years. Since the dependency was receivable from the deceased by the dependents in annual instalments, a deduction on the ground of acceleration would have to be made from such a total when the court grants compensation in one lump sum payable forthwith. Further deduction will have to be made from such sum by taking into account the risk of illness or incapacity shortening the working life of the deceased and fatal accidents shortening the actual longevity of the deceased. To avoid these numerous calculations, another method is adopted and has become the standard one. Further deduction will have to be made from such sum by taking into account the risk of illness or incapacity shortening the working life of the deceased and fatal accidents shortening the actual longevity of the deceased. To avoid these numerous calculations, another method is adopted and has become the standard one. It is to arrive at a figure which would represent the purchase of "the dependency for years which would be much shorter than the number of years for which the deceased was to live. " This view of the D B was based upon the various decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Gobald Motor Service v. R. M K Velusami, AIR 1962 SC. 1 MCD v. Subbagwanti AIR SC1750; C. K. Subramania v. T Kunhi Kuttan Nair AIR 1970 SC 376 , M. P. S. R T v. Sudhakar AIR 1977 SC 1189 and Mrs. Manjushri v. B L. Gupta AIR 1977 SC 1158 . ( 4 ) THE reasons why the second method of calculating the compensation is preferable as given in pare 11 of the judgment are : "the basis of this method is that the actual number of years for which the deceased was expected to live is shortened by off-setting against it the risk of untimely death or incapacity to work caused by accident and illness. Since these off-setting factors arc such as have to be taken into account in every case, the difference is caused only by the age of the deceased at the time of his death and the number of years he was expected to live had be not died in the accident. " ( 5 ) THE deceased in that case was 28 years old and his income tax returns showed that his earnings were Rs. 7300. 00 p. a. in 1961-62. The claim was filed by the father and minor brothers of the deceased. Brothers were held not entitled to the compensaation because according to Hindu Succession Act, father would take precedence over the brothers in the category of L. R. s The Beach expressed its anguish in para 7, we are distressed by the inadequacy in the law which has prevented the three minor brothers of the deceased from claiming compensation for his death even though they were his real brothers and were actually dependent on the income earned by the deceased. " The D. B. also relied upon the observations of Lord Diplock in Mallet V. Me Monagle, 1969 Ace CJ 312 which held, courts have not infrequently awarded 16 years purchase of the dependency. It is seldom that number of years purchase is exceeded. "they further relied upon the observations in the aforesaid case, "commonly accepted method of working out, the compensation is to provide the dependent L. R. s of the deceased with a capital sum which with prudent management will be sufficient to supply them with material benefits of the same standard and duration as would have been provided for them out of the earning of the deceased had he not been killed by tortious act. " ( 6 ) THE Tribunal in this case has applied a multiplier of 20 taking into consideration that the petitioner who was aged 5 at the time of the accident would have been married by the age of 25. I am of the view that as held in the case of Devan Hari Chand (supra) it is seldom that the multiplier of 16 years purchase of dependency is exceeded, in this case the multiplier applied being 20, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the Tribunal has committed any error in this respect. In this situation the question that the appellant would have been married at the age of 25 or not loses all significance. Rather the error, if any, is on the higher side. ( 7 ) IN the case of Dewan Hari Chand (supra) this Court also said that the claimant hid not made any pleading and had not adduced any evidence that there were circumstances which would show that the income of the deceased was liable to increase from year to year. So the Court was constrained to observe further that it was unable to give effect to the probability which existed that the income of the deceased would not have remained stationary but would have increased from year to year (See para 7 ). In this case, there is evidence to indicate that the deceased would have earned various increases in her salary with the passage of time because of annual increments as also because of recommendations of the various pay commissions. Ex. PW3/2 is a statement issued by the Principal, Govt. Girls School, Dhaka, where the deceased was employed. In this case, there is evidence to indicate that the deceased would have earned various increases in her salary with the passage of time because of annual increments as also because of recommendations of the various pay commissions. Ex. PW3/2 is a statement issued by the Principal, Govt. Girls School, Dhaka, where the deceased was employed. She would have continued to remain in service upto 30. 3. 90 which was the date of her retirement. By that time her total monthly emoluments would have reached Rs. 1458. 00 p. m. The appellant also produced on record certain documents including a letter dated 7. 5. /5 by the Accounts Officer of the Office of Accountant General to the Director of Education informing that on the death of mother of the appellant family pension @ Rs. 146. 00 p. m. w. e. f. 20-12-72 to 19-12-79 and @ Rs. 73. 00 w. e. f. 20-12-79 onwards and the DCR gratuity of Rs. 4850. 00 in equal shares to all family members are payable. Regarding family pension, it further stated that the same will be payable to the husband upto 20. 11. 73 and thereafter to the minor daughter Reena upto 24. 11. 88 or marriage whichever is earlier. This document has not been formally proved on record but by now it is well established that formal rules of procedure and evidence are not applicable to these proceedings. Therefore, this document can be taken into consideration by the Court specially when it is produced on record by the appellant herself. The net result is that the appellant has also received family pension w. e. f. 21. 11. 73 till 24. 12 88 because it has been stated at the bar that she has not married as yet. As there is a revision of pay scales from time to time, it is also a matter of common knowledge that the pensionary benefits are also revised. Therefore 1 am of the view that the appellant would also have drawn at least about Rs. 200. 00 p. m. as family pension. Therefore, 1 am of the view that balancing the various imponderables of life like risk of the illness, incapacity, shortening the working life of the deceased etc. Therefore 1 am of the view that the appellant would also have drawn at least about Rs. 200. 00 p. m. as family pension. Therefore, 1 am of the view that balancing the various imponderables of life like risk of the illness, incapacity, shortening the working life of the deceased etc. and also the fact that acoelrated payment is being made as against the subsequent increases in the salary of the deceased, the monthly dependency or the purchase dependency may be taken at Rs. 400. 00 P. m. Calculated in this manner the total amount of compensation claim payable 10 the appellant would come to Rs. 96,000. 00. 1 would like to round off this claim at Rs. 1 lakh It may be recalled at this point that this amount is being paid only to one of L. R. s in a situation where the husband of the deceased has not made any claim. ( 8 ) I, therefore, allow this appeal and award the claim of Rs. 1 lakh to the appellant. About interest Tribunal has given very cogent reasons for not awarding interest prior to the date of order. The Insurance company shall, however, pay interest from the date of judgment of the Tribunal @12% p. a. annum till realisation. If amount awarded by Tribunal has already been deposited in accordance with its directions, the Insurance company would be liable to pay interest on the balance of Rs. 52,000. 00.