JUDGMENT M.W. Deo, J. 1. This appeal is by the insurance company against an award of Rs. 1,20,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on account of death of Sanjay aged 21 years in a motor accident, 2. Briefly stated the case of the claimants is that Sanjay was their son aged 21 years. The claimants are the parents of deceased Sanjay. On 27.4.1980 Sanjay was travelling in a bus bearing registration No. NLK 2510 for journey from Indore to Bombay. A little ahead of Mhow a truck bearing registration No. MPN 5126 came in high speed from the opposite side and hit Sanjay's head in the window resulting in death of Sanjay. The truck as well as the bus were both insured with the appellant insurance company. While Om Prakash was the owner of the truck, Vijay Kumar was the owner of the bus. It is not in dispute that the drivers of the two vehicles were in the employment of the owners and held a valid driving licence. 3. The claim was resisted by the owner and insurance company denying negligence on the part of driver of the truck alone and alleged that the driver of the bus was guilty of contributory negligence. The income of Sanjay and the consequent dependency of the claimants was denied. Age of deceased Sanjay and his parents was also denied. 4. The learned Tribunal held that (i) there was no case of contributory negligence and that the driver of the truck alone was responsible due to his negligence for the accident; (ii) Sanjay paid Rs. 400/- per month to his parents and as such the annual dependency was Rs. 4,800/-; (iii) age of Sanjay was 22 years; and (iv) age of father Madhavrao was 48 years and that of mother was 45 years. 5. On the aforesaid data the Tribunal held that the parents were expected to live up to the age of 70 years and, therefore, applied a multiplier of 22 vis-a-vis the father and 25 vis-a-vis the mother. Thus the Tribunal arrived at assessment of compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/-. 6. In this appeal it so happened that Om Prakash, the owner of the truck, walked out of the appeal by an application. The appeal was thus contested by only the insurance company. Thus the Tribunal arrived at assessment of compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/-. 6. In this appeal it so happened that Om Prakash, the owner of the truck, walked out of the appeal by an application. The appeal was thus contested by only the insurance company. We heard the counsel for some time on a preliminary question raised by the respondents-claimants that the same insurance company is respondent No. 6 also and cannot be heard in appeal, for that would amount to same person to be appellant and respondent both. We do not propose to decide this point but allow the appellant to argue the appeal in the peculiar circumstances that the insurance company insured both the truck and the bus and consequently there could be a difference as a result of contractual and statutory liability of the insurance company arising out of the two independent contracts. 7. The first point argued for the appellant was that the driver of the bus was responsible for contributory negligence. Having heard the learned Counsel and also having perused the evidence we find that the Tribunal was absolutely correct in discussing in para 10 of the award that truck came towards the bus and hit into the rear window of the bus where the deceased was sitting. The only sentence that the bus was also in high speed does not in any manner amount to negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Consequently, we confirm the finding of the Tribunal that it was the driver of the truck who was solely responsible by his negligent driving resulting in the accident. 8. It was, secondly, argued that the dependency of the parents has been wrongly assessed at Rs. 400/- per month. Madhavrao, PW 3, the father of the deceased, deposed in para 2 that his son Sanjay used to support the parents by paying Rs. 400/- per month. The statement in para 6 that he used to come twice or thrice in a year and used to pay at that time cannot be read to mean that Sanjay used to pay Rs. 400/- only two or three times in a year. On a consideration of the entire evidence of Madhavrao as a whole we are in agreement with the finding of the learned Tribunal that deceased Sanjay used to give Rs. 400/- only two or three times in a year. On a consideration of the entire evidence of Madhavrao as a whole we are in agreement with the finding of the learned Tribunal that deceased Sanjay used to give Rs. 400/- per month to the claimants and as such the dependency was rightly held to be Rs. 400/- per month or Rs. 4,800/- per year. 9. The third point argued for the appellant was that multiplier of 22 in case of father and that of 25 in case of mother has been wrongly applied. The learned Counsel for the appellant is correct on this count. While applying a multiplier which is a number to be arrived at after considering the number of years of the life left of the deceased as well as the dependency to be used by the dependants. This is one way. The other way to assess the compensation is to multiply the annual dependency by the number of expected years of life of the deceased left and then deduct from it the reasonable percentage on account of factors like uncertainty of life. 10. Applying the aforesaid parameter we think that in view of the fact that Sanjay was aged 21 years as deposed by Madhavrao and as found by the entry in the post-mortem report, it would be just and fair to apply a multiplier of 20, particularly when the age of father being 48 and that of the mother 45 years. The annual dependency being Rs. 4,800/-, the assessment of compensation would work out to Rs. 96,000/- by applying a multiplier of 20. 11. Consequently,-the appeal is partly allowed regarding the quantum and the award of Rs. 1,20,000/- is reduced to Rs. 96,000/-. The rate of interest, however, was wrongly awarded by the Tribunal because the Supreme Court has now' consistently awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition. We, therefore, direct that the compensation of Rs. 96,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till payment. The amount, if already paid towards the award, shall be adjusted against the aforesaid amount. In view of partial success and failure of the appeal, the parties are left to bear costs as incurred.