ORDER R.D. Shukla, J. -- 1. The common questions of fact & law (excepting the quantum) are involved in Misc. Appeal Nos. 296/86, 297/86, 298/86, 325/86, 326/86,331/86 and 332/86, hence, the same, excepting the quantum, are being decided by this order. 2. Misc. Appeal No. 296/86 arises out of the judgment and award dated 14.8.86, passed in Claim Case No. 3/82; Misc. Appeal No. 297/86 arises out of the judgment and award dated 29.8.86, passed in Claim Case No. 93/81; Misc. Appeal No. 298/86 arises out of the judgment and award dated 29.8.86, passed in Claim Case No. 89/81; Misc. Appeal No. 325/86 arises out of the judgment and award dated 29.8.86, passed in Claim Case No. 90/81; Misc. Appeal No. 326/86 arises out of the judgment and award dated. 29.8.86, passed in Claim Case No. 95/81; Misc. Appeal No. 330/86 arises out of the judgment and award dated 12.8.86, passed in Claim Case No. 1/82; Misc. Appeal No. 331/86 arises out of the judgment and award dated 29.8.86, passed in Claim Case No. 97/81 and Misc. Appeal No. 332/86 arises out of the judgment and award dated 29.8.86, passed in Claim Case No. 96, by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, west Nimar (Mandleshwar),whereby various amounts have been awarded as compensation to the claimants with a further direction that the Insurance Co. is not liable to make payments as the agreement of insurance was void. 3. Brief history of the case is that motor bus No. M.P.O. 3142 was being taken from village Nanda to Katargaon by respondent Ishaq Khan, who was the driver. The motor bus was owned by one Shri Kartar Singh. The respondent No. 2 (a), (b), (c) & (d) are legal representatives of Shri Kartarsingh. The motor bus was insured with respondent No.3, The New India Assurance Co. The respondent No.4 was managing the affairs and looking after the motor bus. The motor driver Ishaq Khan while taking the bus as above reached the bank of river 'Malan', which is a tributary of river 'Narmada', it had a culvert. The water was flowing over the bridge with strong current. Despite objections by the passengers the motor bus driver plunged the bus in the water. The moment bus reached almost in the middle it was swept away with strong current of water. Some of the passengers could swim across and were saved by Home-guard personnels. The water was flowing over the bridge with strong current. Despite objections by the passengers the motor bus driver plunged the bus in the water. The moment bus reached almost in the middle it was swept away with strong current of water. Some of the passengers could swim across and were saved by Home-guard personnels. Many passengers were swept away by current of the water and their bodies could also not be recovered. Mangilal, the husband of claimant appellant No.1 and father of claimant appellant Nos. 2 to 8 who was also related as son to claimant appellant Nos. 9 & 10 was also swept away in that strong current of water. His body could not be recovered. 4. Mangilal was the bread winner of the family. He was earning nearly Rs.10/- per day and he was aged about 40 years. The claimant, therefore, prayed for a compensation of Rs. 85,500/-. The respondents contested the claim and pleaded that there was no negligence of driver. It was vis-major. The river 'Malan' has a dam in the upper stream. The gates of the same were opened without notice to the residents of the area. The water current rose all of a sudden and took the bus in its grip and swept it away. The fact of Mangilal being a passenger in the bus was also denied. It was also contended that the bus was sold to respondent No. 4 without intimation to Insurance Co. It was also pleaded that the driver had no valid licence and the policy was purchased in the name of a dead person Kartarsingh and therefore the contract is void and Company is not liable to make payment. 5. The learned Tribunal held that the accident happened due to negligent driving of the vehicle. Mangilal was a passenger in the bus, who died in the accident. Age of Mangilal was accepted to be 45 years. The dependency was assessed to Rs.5/- per day i.e., Rs.1,800/- per year. By applying a multiplier of 10, Rs.18,000/- was awarded as general damages and Rs.3,000/- was awarded as damages for loss of consortium. As such a total of Rs.21,000/- was awarded. This accident occurred on 9.8.81. Kartarsingh died somewhere in 1975. The premium was paid by the heirs of Kartarsingh, i.e., respondent Nos. By applying a multiplier of 10, Rs.18,000/- was awarded as general damages and Rs.3,000/- was awarded as damages for loss of consortium. As such a total of Rs.21,000/- was awarded. This accident occurred on 9.8.81. Kartarsingh died somewhere in 1975. The premium was paid by the heirs of Kartarsingh, i.e., respondent Nos. 2 (a) to 2 (d), but taking it to be a contract with a dead person that being void, the Insurance Company was exonerated of its liability. While granting awards of various amounts in all other cases referred above the Insurance Company was completely exonerated of its liability, as such, all the claimants have filed appeals contesting this finding of the Tribunal and further for enhancement of amount of compensation. 6. It appears no cross-appeal or cross-objections have been filed by the respondents. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that it is the motorbus that was insured. Insurance Company having accepted the premium for all the years including for the year of accident cannot be allowed to raise this bogey of objection as to agreement with dead person. The alternative contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that if any misrepresentation or concealment of fact has been done by respondent Nos. 2 (a) to 2 (d) and respondent No.4, Insurance Company can recover the amount paid to claimants, from these persons but the claimants cannot be deprived of their right of recovering the amount of compensation from the Insurance Company. 8. The third contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the compensation has been estimated on the lower side as multiplier of 10 has been used and the same ought to have been of 15. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, firstly tried to assail the fact of negligence in driving and thereafter submitted that since the agreement with dead person is void and therefore the Insurance Co. is not liable to make payments. It has also been submitted that the primary responsibility of payment of compensation is on the owner of the vehicle and the insurer is liable to make good the loss to the insured, but the contract being void the same cannot be directed to be done by the Insurance Co. 9. There is no dispute that Kartarsingh died some where in 1975 and the accident occurred in 1981. 9. There is no dispute that Kartarsingh died some where in 1975 and the accident occurred in 1981. The premium of insurance policy was being paid all along by respondent Nos. 2 (a) to 2 (d), i.e., heirs of Kartarsingh. Respondent No.4 was looking after and managing the affairs after the death of Kartarsingh. The Insurance Co. accepted the premium all along and had issued valid Insurance Policy for the year of accident. 10. So far as the fact of negligent driving is concerned, the same has not been seriously challenged as taking the vehicle through a culvert overflowing with the water itself shows that the driver took the risk with the expectation that nothing untoward shall happen and if in that situation the bus was swept away by strong current of water, the natural inference would be that driver acted rashly and drove the vehicle negligently without caring for the safety of passengers in the vehicle. In such a situation respondents cannot be allowed to say that it was a vis-major. Thus, the finding about rash and negligent driving has rightly been arrived at We also confirm the same. 11. Now, so far as the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, section 94 (New Section 146) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 makes a provision of compulsory insurance for covering the third party risk, which reads as follows:- "146. No person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of this chapter. " 12. From the plain reading of the section it is apparent that third party insurance in all cases of use of vehicle is necessary. Admittedly Kartarsingh died somewhere in the year 1975. The Insurance Co. had all along been accepting the premium for the insurance of motor bus and they had accepted the premium for the year of accident also. The accident occurred on 9.8.81. The Insurance Co. had collected premium for the period 11.6.81 to 10.6.82. The Insurance Co. has got number of officers and employees to check and verify the vehicle and the owner of the vehicle. The accident occurred on 9.8.81. The Insurance Co. had collected premium for the period 11.6.81 to 10.6.82. The Insurance Co. has got number of officers and employees to check and verify the vehicle and the owner of the vehicle. Now having accepted the premium for the insurance of the vehicle the Insurance Company can't be allowed to say that he is not liable to compensate the persons who have been injured or who died in the accident. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents who was supporting the finding of the Tribunal submitted that the vehicle was owned by Kartarsingh and since he had died there is end of liability of the Insurer in respect of the motor bus. 13. We are not persuaded to uphold this argument though the Tribunal was There is nothing in the policy issued in the name of Kartarsingh stating that it is purely personal to him. On the other hand on plain reading of the condition of the policy it is clear that the coverage is that of the motor bus and not the insurer. Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act insists for the compulsory insurance against the third party risk and prohibits user of vehicle in a public place unless there is a policy of insurance. The words "unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle of that person .................... a policy of insurance" go to show that it is the vehicle that is required to be insured and not the person or the owner of the vehicle and in such a situation the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability. A similar argument was advanced before High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a case reported in 1976 ACJ 320 D.B., but the same was repelled and it was held that the Insurance Co. is liable to compensate third party. 14. The vehicular accidents have increased much, the question that arises is as to whether sufferers from vehicular accident are entitled under Law to get something for their survival or should be left without redress. The following observations of lord Denning M.R. in the case on Launchbury v. Morgans, (1971) 2 QB 245 are equally relevant for our case: "A Motor Vehicle is a powerful engine of death and destructing. The following observations of lord Denning M.R. in the case on Launchbury v. Morgans, (1971) 2 QB 245 are equally relevant for our case: "A Motor Vehicle is a powerful engine of death and destructing. It is capable of doing much damage to persons and to property unless it is driven with due care and attention. As the number of cars increases and as their speeds get faster, so the danger grows. More and more people are killed. More and more are injured. More and more property is damaged. The sufferers ought not to be left without redress. So Parliament and Judges have done their best to see that they are compensated to their loss. " 15. The benevolent object of the legislation has been considered by the Supreme Court in number of cases. We would refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan reported in AIR 1987 SC 1184 at para 13 which reads as follows:- "13. In order of divine the intention of the legislature in the course of interpretation of the relevant provisions there can scarcely be a better test than that of probing into the motive and philosophy of the relevant provisions keeping in mind the goals to be achieved by enacting the same. S. 94 requiring the owner of the motor vehicle using it in a public place has been inserted in order to protect the members of the community travelling in vehicles or using the roads from the risk attendant upon the user of motor vehicles on the roads. The law may provide for compensation to victims of the accidents who sustain injuries in the course of an automobile accident or compensation to the dependent of the victims in the case of a fatal accident. However, such protection would remain a protection on paper unless there is a guarantee that the compensation awarded by the Courts would be recoverable from the persons held liable for the consequences of the accident. A Court can only pass an award or a decree. It cannot ensure that such an award or decree results in the amount awarded being actually recovered, from the person hold liable who may not have the recourses. A Court can only pass an award or a decree. It cannot ensure that such an award or decree results in the amount awarded being actually recovered, from the person hold liable who may not have the recourses. To overcome this ugly situation the legislature has made it obligatory that no motor vehicle shall be used unless a third party insurance is in force. To use the vehicle without the requisite third party insurance being in force is a penal offence. The legislature was also faced with another problem. The insurance policy might provide for liability walled in by conditions which may be specified in the contract of policy. In order to make the protection real, the legislature has also provided that the judgment obtained shall not be defeated by the incorporation of exclusion clauses other than those authorised by S. 96 and by providing that except and save to the extent permitted by S. 96 it will be the obligation of the Insurance Company to satisfy the judgment obtained against the persons insured against third party risks." 16. In our considered opinion, therefore, despite the fact that Kartarsingh was dead at the time of accident and the premium was paid by their legal heirs, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the heirs of the deceased and to the injured in the accident if they are aggrieved by the concealment of fact or mis-representation or fraud, if any, they can make a grievance before the appropriate forum separately, but they cannot escape their liability of payment of compensation by raising this bogey of agreement being void. 17. The next point that arises for determination in this case is that as to whether Mangilal died in the accident? Learned Tribunal, on the basis of evidence of A. W. 2 Mangilal s/o Dharmya, has held that deceased Mangilal was also travelling alongwith him,in that bus which was swept away with the current of water. He has further stated that the body of Mangilal could not be found. There is nothing to disbelieve this witness. It has, therefore, rightly been held by the Tribunal that Mangilal died in the accident. 18. Now, the point that arises for determination in the case is that what would be the just compensation in the case and as to whether the amount deserves to be enhanced? There is nothing to disbelieve this witness. It has, therefore, rightly been held by the Tribunal that Mangilal died in the accident. 18. Now, the point that arises for determination in the case is that what would be the just compensation in the case and as to whether the amount deserves to be enhanced? Normally for determining the compensation either the method of capitalisation of net income or choosing the multiplier appropriate to the age of the deceased will be the appropriate method. But, the method of aggregating the total expected income for the remainder of the life-expectancy with appropriate deductions towards uncertainties of life and for lump sum payments is now considered unscientific and is virtually obsolete, and, therefore taking the yearly income and the loss of the dependency of the claimants and its capitalisation by using a multiplier having regard to the age of the deceased will be the appropriate method for estimating the compensation. ( AIR 1993 SC 1259 , National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaranlata Das & Ors., para 5). 19. Learned Tribunal has, on the basis of statement of Mangilal and the averments in the petition, held that Mangilal was earning Rs. 10/- per day. However, the dependency has been assessed to Rs. 5/- per day only, on the ground that Nanibai was also earning as a labourer. Looking to the number of the family members, specially as the claimants-appellants No.3 to 8 are minors and No.9 and 10 parents of deceased as also the father Onkar (claimant No.9) is a person aged about 75 years, who may not be able to work, the dependency ought to have been assessed Rs. 6/- per day (In the special facts & circumstances of this case). Thus, the dependency of the claimants would come to Rs. 180/- per month would come to Rs. 2,160/- per year. The age of the deceased Mangilal has been accepted to be 45 years. The learned Tribunal has adopted multiplier of 10. Mangilal being a labour, would have worked upto the age of 60 years and in such a situation a multiplier of 13 ought to have been applied [Learned Tribunal himself had applied multiplier of 13 in other case, that is, in Claim case No. 89/81 (New No. 66/86)]. Thus, the general damages payable to the claimant would come to Rs. 28,080/-, which may be rounded to Rs. 28,000/-. Thus, the general damages payable to the claimant would come to Rs. 28,080/-, which may be rounded to Rs. 28,000/-. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,000/- for loss of consortium to Nanibai, but nothing has been awarded for the loss of love and affection to other claimants, i.e., son, daughters and parents. A separate amount of Rs. 5,000/- deserves to be awarded on that count as well. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 28,000/- + Rs. 3,000/- + Rs. 5,000/- = Rs. 36,000/- in all, with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of application till realisation of the same, which shall be recovered from the respondents jointly and severally. 20. As to the mode of payment, we would like to observe that section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act specifically empowers the Claims Tribunal to award just compensation. "Just compensation" would include the payment of compensation by periodical instalments. In fact all the Insurance Companies are paying compensations from the money collected from the public, i.e., policy holders. This is a public money owned by the society. Thus, it is the society who is giving protection to the injured persons and in such a situation while directing the mode of payment the Tribunals are required to see that the compensation, specially the compensation awarded in favour of the minors are secured in such a way so that the minors may get payments periodically till they gain majority. Apart from the aforesaid aspects it should be noted that because of the death of the bread earner of the family the entire family suffers. The task of approaching the law Courts by engaging lawyers for filing application for compensation may also sometime add to their miseries. The following observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a case of Motor Owners' Insurance Co. Ltd. v. J.K. Modi (AIR 1981 SC2059, para 18) gives a guideline in this respect, which reads as under:- "We are, therefore, of the opinion that the ambiguity in the language used by the legislature in the opening part of S. 95 (2) and the doubt arising out of the correlation of the language with the word 'in all' which occur in Cl. (a), must be resolved by having regard to the underlying legislative purpose of the provisions contained in Chapter VIII of the Act which deals with third party risks. That is a sensitive process which has to accommodate the claims of the society as reflected in that purpose. Indeed, it is in this area of legislative ambiguities, unfortunately not receding that Courts have to fill gaps, clear doubts and mitigate hardships." 21. In our opinion, therefore, instead of giving lump sum compensation it would be in the interest of victims and the society to evolve a formula or mode for paying compensation periodically. The following observation made in a decision New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlaben Sultansingh Jadav & Ors. (AIR 1993 Gujrat 171, Full Bench) is quoted with approval: "5. ...................... This method may, to some extent, alleviate the serious prevailing drawbacks, because it is stated that, before the compensation reaches the hands of the victim or their heirs, the lion's share of the compensation is pocketed by the middlemen or so called power of attorney holders who trade in their miseries. It may also save to some extent the huge expenses including advocate's fees which are required for litigation before getting compensation and may ensure safe custody of compensation amount awarded to the victims which, ultimately, would be in the interest of the society. 22. In our opinion, therefore, the award of Rs. 36,000/- be paid in following manner: Rs. 20,000/- be kept in a fixed deposit in some nationalised bank with a condition that the interest accuring on the sum would be paid quarterly, i.e., at the expiry of three months to Nanibai and other members of the family for the welfare of claimant Nos. 3 to 8. The deposit shall initially be made for three years and shall be renewable thereafter every three years and such a process shall continue for 15 years. Thereafter, the claimants No.3 to 8 may be allowed to withdraw the amount in toto. (Almost a similar direction was made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a case reported in AIR 1993 SC 1259 (supra). The rest 2/3rd of rest of the amount including the interest accounting on the compensation amount be paid in cash to Nanibai for herself and claimant No.2 and the 1/3rd amount be paid to the parents of the deceased, i.e., claimant Nos. 9& 10. 23. The rest 2/3rd of rest of the amount including the interest accounting on the compensation amount be paid in cash to Nanibai for herself and claimant No.2 and the 1/3rd amount be paid to the parents of the deceased, i.e., claimant Nos. 9& 10. 23. As a result, the appeal (M.A No. 296/86) is allowed with costs. The award granted by the Tribunal is modified as above and further subject to the mode of payment as above. The amount of compensation mentioned above shall carry interest at the rate of Rs. 12% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realisation. 24. M.A No. 297/86 arises out of Claim petition No. 93/81 which has been filed by the heirs of Nisar Ahmed who died in the accident referred above. Learned Tribunal has held in para 14 of its award that Nisar Ahmad died in the accident. This fact has been corroborabed by AW. 2 Mangilal s/o Gharmia, who has stated that many passengers were swept away with the current of the water including Nisar Ahmad whose dead body could not be found. Similar statement has been given by said Bano wd/o deceased and AW. 4 Mohammad Naimkhan, brother-in-law of deceased Nisar Ahmad. Both of them have stated that after hearing about the accident they went to the spot, but the body of Nisar Ahmad could not be recovered. We find nothing to differ with the finding of Tribunal about the death of Nisar Ahmad in the accident and we also affirm the same. 25. At stated by AW. 3 and AW.4, Nisar Ahamad was working as village postman and was getting Rs. 150/- p.m. and was looking after agriculture work also. The learned Tribunal has estimated age of Nisar Ahmad to be about 36 years and accepted the multiplier of 15. AW. 3 Saida Bano had stated that they were earning nearly Rs. 8 to 10 thousand per year from their agricultural land, but now after the death of Nisar Ahmad the land has been given on lease and they get nearly 4,000/- to 5,000/- per year. There is no effective cross-examination on this point. Even otherwise the work of village postman is a part time job and in order to maintain and run a large family like him Nisar Ahmad must have been working in his field and must have been carrying on some other work also. There is no effective cross-examination on this point. Even otherwise the work of village postman is a part time job and in order to maintain and run a large family like him Nisar Ahmad must have been working in his field and must have been carrying on some other work also. In such a situation, we are inclined to accept his income to be atleast Rs. 250/per month, which comes to Rs. 3,000/- per year. In our opinion, looking to the size of the family he must have been spending Rs. 150/- per month on them. Thus, the dependency of family comes to Rs. 1,800/- per year. The learned Tribunal has applied a multiplier of 15 by accepting age to be 36 years, Nisar Ahmad could have worked up to the age of 60 and therefore in such a situation atleast a multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied. The claimants are, therefore, entitled for a compensation on the heading of general damages to the extent of 32,400/-, which may be rounded as Rs. 32,000/-. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,000/- for loss of consortium to Saida Bano and nothing to the children and the mother for loss of love and affection. As such a separate amount of Rs. 4,000/- is awarded on that heading. Thus, the claimants in the case are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 32,000/- + Rs. 3,000/- + Rs. 4,000/- = Rs. 39,000/- in all with interest at the rate of Rs. 12% p.a. from the date of application till realisation of the same. Since claimant Nos. 2,3 & 4 are minors and, therefore, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- be deposited in an interest paying annuity deposit in some nationalised bank. The interest thereon shall be paid to the claimant No.1, Saida Bano for the welfare of claimant Nos. 2 & 3 on a quarterly basis. Since claimant Nos. 2 & 3 are shown to be aged 5 years and 3 years the amount shall remain in fixed deposit for 15 years and thereafter whole amount can be withdrawn and paid to the minors The rest of the amount including the interest accruing thereon shall be paid to claimant No.1 and claimant No.5 jointly. The compensation would be recoverable jointly and severally from all the respondents. 26. The compensation would be recoverable jointly and severally from all the respondents. 26. M.A No. 298/86 arises out of Claim petition No. 89/81, which has been filed by heirs of Sukya, who died in the accident referred above. Balibai Wd/o of deceased Sukya has stated that her husband Sukya was a passenger in the bus which was swept away by the strong current of water. Eye-witness Mangilal, who was a fortunate surviver has also stated that Sukya was a passenger in the bus. It is, therefore, rightly been held that husband of Balibai died in the motor accident. Balibai has stated that her husband Sukya was earning nearly 7 to 8 rupees per day. She has further stated that Sukya was aged about 45 years. The learned Tribunal has rightly used the multiplier of 13 in the case, as is evident from para 16 of the judgment of the learned Tribunal. The loss of dependency has been accepted to be Rs. 100/- p.m. i..e., Rs. 1,200/- per year. The learned Tribunal has accepted that the deceased could spare Rs. 4 per day for the claimants. In that position the dependency would come to Rs. 120/- per month, which will come to Rs. 1,440/- per year. As such a multiplier of 13 when applied the total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 18,720/- which may be rounded up to Rs. 19,000/-, that appears to be proper amount. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,000/- for loss of consortium but nothing has been awarded for loss of love and affection to claimant No.2.. An amount of Rs. 3,000/- would be proper to award on that count. As such the total compensation would be Rs. 19,000/- + Rs. 3,000/- + Rs. 3,000/- = 25,000/- and after deducting ex-gratia of Rs. 2,000/- the net compensation comes to Rs. 23,000/-. The interest of 12% on this amount from the date of application till realisation has rightly been awarded. The same is affirmed. Out of the amount so awarded Rs. 12,000/- be kept in interest paying fixed deposit in some nationalised bank, renewable after 3 years with a direction that the interest accruing on the same shall be paid after the expiry of 3rd month to the claimant Balibai for the welfare of claimant No.2, who is a minor. This amount shall be kept in the bank for 15 years. 12,000/- be kept in interest paying fixed deposit in some nationalised bank, renewable after 3 years with a direction that the interest accruing on the same shall be paid after the expiry of 3rd month to the claimant Balibai for the welfare of claimant No.2, who is a minor. This amount shall be kept in the bank for 15 years. Thereafter the claimant No.2 would be entitled to withdraw it in full. The rest of the amount and the interest accruing thereon may be paid to claimant No. 1. 27. M.A. No. 225/86 and M.A. No: 226/86 arise out of Claim petition Nos. 90/85 and 95/85 respectively. Both the claim petitions have been filed by same claimant, i.e., Tulsiram and his wife Laxmibai. As per the assertions of claimants, claimant No.2 Laxmibai was travelling in the fateful bus alongwith her two daughters (Sulochana aged 6 years and Mamta aged 4 years). Both the them were swept away by strong current of water and their body could not be found. Claimants prayed for a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for the death of Sulochana vide Claim case No. 90/85 and prayed for a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for the death of Mamta vide claim case No. 95/85. The learned Tribunal has awarded a global compensation of Rs. 15,000/- in each case. From the evidence of Tulsiram it is proved that his two daughters were swept away in the strong current of water who were travelling with his wife Laxmibai. Laxmibai has not be examined in the case who had the first hand knowledge of the accident, as after the accident who was mentally deranged. There is nothing to differ about that finding and the same is hereby affirmed. A global compensation awarded on death of each of the daughter of claimants i.e. Sulochana and Mamta by the learned Tribunal appears to be proper. We are not inclined to interfere in the award granted by the Tribunal in both the cases. 28. M.A. No. 330/85 arises out of Claim petition No. 1/82, which has been filed by the heirs of deceased Karson alias Sarvan, who died in the accident referred above. Claimant Rusibai and Ramkunwar are widows of Sarvan. Gulabbai & Ghisibai are the daughters of the deceased Sarvan. It is alleged that Sarvan was also a passenger in the fateful bus and swept away in the strong current of water. Claimant Rusibai and Ramkunwar are widows of Sarvan. Gulabbai & Ghisibai are the daughters of the deceased Sarvan. It is alleged that Sarvan was also a passenger in the fateful bus and swept away in the strong current of water. This fact has been stated by Mangilal. There is no challenge to that statement. As such it has rightly been accepted that Sarvan died in motor accident. Claimant Nos. 3 &4aremarrieddaughtersand they were not dependant on Sarvan. As such claim on their behalf has rightly been disallowed by the learned Tribunal. Deceased Sarvan was aged about 60 years and the claimant Nos. 1 & 2 are aged about 50 years. Deceased Sarvan may have lived up to the age of 70 years, but without sufficient earning capacity. Learned Tribunal has assessed a global compensation of Rs. 15,000/-, but has deducted Rs. 4,000/(ex-gratia payment made by the Government). In our opinion in the facts and circumstances of the case atleast Rs. 15,000/- ought to have been awarded to the claimants in the case as before the amendment in 1988 amount of Rs. 15,000/- was awardable on the basis of no fault liability. We, therefore, enhance this compensation to Rs. 15,000/-. The claimants shall further be entitled to interest at the rate of Rs. 12% p.a. from the date of application till realisation of the same. Out of the amount so awarded 50% of the same including the interest accruing thereon shall be kept in the fixed deposit in some nationalised bank with a direction that the interest would be paid every quarterly i.e., on expiry of three months to both the widows i.e. claimant No.1 & 2. The same would be renewable every three years and may be withdrawn by the claimants or the surviving claimants after the expiry of ten years. The rest of the amount shall be paid to claimants in cash. 29. M.A No. 331/86 arises out of claim petition No. 97/81. The claimant No.1 Shantibai is widow of deceased Mangilal. Claimant Nos. 2 & 3 are son and daughter of deceased Mangilal. Claimant Nos. 4 & 5 are mother and father of deceased Mangilal. Claimant No.5 died during the pendency of appeal, as such his name struck of from the array of claimant-appellants. The claimant No.1 Shantibai is widow of deceased Mangilal. Claimant Nos. 2 & 3 are son and daughter of deceased Mangilal. Claimant Nos. 4 & 5 are mother and father of deceased Mangilal. Claimant No.5 died during the pendency of appeal, as such his name struck of from the array of claimant-appellants. It is alleged that Mangilal was also a passenger in the fateful bus, who was also swept away in the strong current of water and his body was found lateron in the down stream of river Malan near Dharampur. The death of Mangilal in the accident has been found proved by the Tribunal on the basis of statement of A W. 3 Shantibai wd/o Mangilal and AW. 4 Dhanna. AW. 2 Mangilal s/o Dharmya has also stated about Mangilal being a passenger, but he has stated about one Mangilal only. The death of one Mangilal who was husband of Nanibai (claimant in claim case No. 3/82) has been accepted. However, the body of that Mangilal was not found and in this case the body was found in the down stream and, therefore, the death of Mangilal in the accident has rightly been found proved. Now, so far as the assessment of compensation is concerned, learned Tribunal has assessed the dependency at Rs. 100/- p.m. A W. 3 Shantibai stated that deceased Mangilal was getting Rs. 400/- per month while working in a cycle repairing shop. A similar statement has been given by Dhanna, but the owner of the cycle shop has not been examined and in view of the nature of job uncertainty in employment and the fact of partial employment the dependency of Rs. 100/p.m. has rightly been assessed. The learned Tribunal has applied a multiplier of 15. The deceased was aged about 25 years hence there was every chance of his working up to the age of 60 years and in that position the multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied. Thus, the loss comes to Rs. 12,00 l/- x 18 = Rs. 21,600/- which may be rounded as 22,000/- - Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,000/for loss of consortium for the widow. That amount appears to be proper, but nothing has been awarded for the loss of love and affection to claimant Nos. 2 & 3 and to claimant No.4 (mother). An amount of Rs. 12,00 l/- x 18 = Rs. 21,600/- which may be rounded as 22,000/- - Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,000/for loss of consortium for the widow. That amount appears to be proper, but nothing has been awarded for the loss of love and affection to claimant Nos. 2 & 3 and to claimant No.4 (mother). An amount of Rs. 3,000/- on that count would be proper to be paid. As such, the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 22,000/- + Rs. 3,000/- + Rs. 3,000/- = Rs. 28,000/- in all with interest of 12% p.a. thereon from the date of application till realisation of the same. 50% of the amount including the interest accruing thereon shall be kept in a fixed deposit in some nationalised bank accruing interest with a direction that the interest shall be paid for the welfare of claimant Nos. 2& 3 every quarterly. The amount would be deposited for 3 years at the first instance and shall be renewable every 3rd year for a period of 15 years. Thereafter, the claimant Nos. 2 & 3 would be entitled to withdraw it in lumpsum. The amount shall be paid to Shantibai till the remarriages for the welfare of claimant Nos. 2 & 3 and to claimant Nos. 2 & 3 after they gain majority. In case of remarriage of Shantibai, they may be paid through Gopibai or any other guardian of claimant Nos. 2 & 3. The rest of the amount shall be paid to Shantibai and Gopibai. The 50% of that amount shall also be kept in fixed deposit for three years renewable every 3rd year with a direction that the interest shall be paid, every quarterly, joinly to Shantibai and Gopibai The rest of the amount i.e., 1/4th of the total award including interest shall be paid in cash to the surviving claimants, i.e., claimant Nos. 1,2,3 & 4. 30. M.A. No. 332/86 arises out of claim case No. 96/81. The claimant Sakharam who died during pendency of claim was the father of Santosh who was a passenger in the fatful bus. His body was also swept away in the strong current of water and could not be found. Sakharam and Selubai (mother of Santosh) jointly filed the claim petition for a. compensation of Rs. 25,000/-, but Sakharam died before statement could be recorded. His body was also swept away in the strong current of water and could not be found. Sakharam and Selubai (mother of Santosh) jointly filed the claim petition for a. compensation of Rs. 25,000/-, but Sakharam died before statement could be recorded. A.W. 2 Selubai has stated that Santosh was travelling alongwith her husband in the bus. The bus was swept away. Sakharam could swim, but Santosh could not be saved. Though, learned Tribunal has referred to statement of Mangilal also, but Mangilal has nowhere disclosed the name of Santosh. However, the statement of Selubai and the statement made by Sakharam by way of petition that his son Santosh aged 9 years died in the accident goes to prove that Santosh died in the accident. Learned Tribunal has awarded a global compensation of Rs. 15,000/- without making any deduction of Rs. 2,000/- ex-gratia payment. That appears to be proper as that was the amount payable on the basis of no fault liability prior to the amendment in the Act in the year 1988. We also affirm the same. The claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of Rs. 12% p.a. 50% of the amount awarded including the interest shall be kept in a nationalised bank accruing quarterly interest, initially for three years and renewable every 3rd year for a period of 15 years. The quarterly interest shall be paid to Selubai for all this period. The rest of the amount shall be paid to Selubai in cash. 31. Before parting with these cases we may like to observe that with the progress of the civilization the speed has increased. All those persons who want to avail the facility of increase in speed by using motor vehicle or such other means of transport and communication voluntarily take the risk as passengers or travellers in such high speed vehicles. This may not be true for pedestrian who walk on the road and meet with the accident, but that definitely applies to persons who take advantage of the high speed vehicles. By introducing a scheme of payment of compensation by the owner and driver of the vehicle whose rash and negligent act has resulted in the accident and further through scheme of insurance, society has safe guarded the interest of citizens including pedestrians. By introducing a scheme of payment of compensation by the owner and driver of the vehicle whose rash and negligent act has resulted in the accident and further through scheme of insurance, society has safe guarded the interest of citizens including pedestrians. Society in fact gives a guarantee against such risk and insurance companies who are trustees of public money collected from various owners of the motor vehicle by way of premium which ultimately passes on to public, discharge their tortuous liability by making such payments and, therefore, while assessing the compensation it should always be taken into consideration that it is the public money that is being paid The death of kith and kin of claimants be not allowed to have a boon indisguise. It is desirable that the payment of compensation should be reasonable which may be sufficient looking to the dependency in the facts and circumstances of the case, but at the same time it should not be lavishly granted as the same causes burden on the society indirectly. Though it is also true that the claimants are not being paid compensation by way of alms or out of respite, but the same is paid to them while discharging the tortuous liability. 32. As a result, M.A. Nos. 296/86, 297/86, 298/86, 330/86, 331/86 and 332/86 are allowed with costs. The complainants-respondents shall be entitled to get compensation (the amount of compensation and the mode of payment shall be as mentioned in paragraph Nos. 22, 25, 26, 28, 29 & 30 above) alongwith interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of application till realization, from the respondents including the Insurance Company, jointly and severally. M.A. No. 325/86 & 326/86 are partly allowed subject to modification that the amount of compensation awarded shall be recoverable from all the respondents. Counsel fee Rs. 500/- in this case.