JUDGMENT B. N. Patnaik, J. 1. The claimants petitioners have filed M.F.A. No. 252 of 1990 and the insurer (Respondent No. 2) filed M.F.A. No. 755/89, under S.110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the award dated 20th January 1989 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in M. V. (O. P.) No. 86 of 1987. 2. The appellants claimants in M.F.A. No. 252/90, who were awarded an amount of Rs. 1,82,400 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 10th February 1987, pray for enhancement of the same to Rs. 2 lakhs which they have claimed in the O. P. The appellant in M.F.A. No. 755 of 1989 prays that the statutory liability of the insurance company being limited to Rs. 1,50,000 in tin's case the direction of the Tribunal to the insurer appellant to pay the whole of the awarded amount may be modified accordingly. 3. Both the appeals were heard together as they arise out of the same award relating to an accident. This judgment will govern both the appeals. 4. Deceased Abraham Thomas was proceeding to Changanacherry by driving the autorickshaw No. KRO 9368 on the M. C. Road at 11.30 p.m. on 11th January 1987. He was proceeding carefully on the eastern side of the road. At this time, the lorry bearing No. KLY 7077 came from the northern side being driven by respondent No. 3 at a very high speed and collided with the autorickshaw. After hitting the autorickshaw it dragged the same to a distance of about 40 feet. The lorry entered into the compound of a house and dashed against a tree as well and the same was uprooted. The impact of the collision was so heavy and severe that the autorickshaw immediately caught fire and the deceased was trapped in that sudden flame and sustained fatal burn injuries. The legal heirs, namely, the widow of the deceased and the parents filed M. V. (O. P.) No. 86/87 before the Claims Tribunal, who are appellants in M.F.A. No. 252 of 1990, against the owner of the lorry (1st respondent), the insurer (2nd respondent) and the Driver of the vehicle (3rd respondent). 5. The learned Tribunal, on a consideration of the evidence on record, found that the said motor accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of 'the lorry by the third respondent. 5. The learned Tribunal, on a consideration of the evidence on record, found that the said motor accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of 'the lorry by the third respondent. This finding has not been seriously challenged before us in the appeal fried by the insurer (M.F.A. No. 755/89). 6. On a perusal of the record, we find that the principle of res ipsa loquitor (the matter or the thing speaks for itself) is squarely applicable to this case. The manner in which there was collision and the resultant death of the deceased that ensued leave no room for doubt to hold that the finding of the Tribunal about the negligence and rashness of the driver (Respondent No. 3) is justified. Having found so, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation under the following heads, by taking into consideration that the deceased as a young man of 26 years was earning Rs. 1,500 per month, out of which a sum of Rs. 500 was spent for himself and a sum of Rs. 1,000 was being contributed to the family : 1. For transportation Rs. 200 2. For damage to clothing and other articles Rs. 200 3. Funeral expenses Rs. 2000 4. For plan and suffering Rs. 2000 5. For loss of consertium Rs. 8000 7. By applying the multiplier of 24, the learned Tribunal calculated the dependency at Rs. 2,88,000. Although he held that a demand of Rs. 2 lakhs is reasonable, he ultimately fixed the amount at Rs. 1,70,000 as compensation for loss of. dependency. Altogether, the claimants were awarded a sum of Rs. 1,82,400. 8. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 3 (the owner and the driver) contended that it is not probable to believe that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,500 every month regularly as a driver of an autorickshaw. He was not. expected to work throughout, day and night, on all the days of the month to earn a sum of Rs. 50 daily. But, the evidence shows that his average income was Rs. 50 per day. It may be true that on some days he might not have got engagement as a driver. It is indeed possible to believe that he might not be working for all the days' in a month. 50 daily. But, the evidence shows that his average income was Rs. 50 per day. It may be true that on some days he might not have got engagement as a driver. It is indeed possible to believe that he might not be working for all the days' in a month. But, he being a robust young man of 26 years of age with a B.A. degree to " his credit was supposed to work hard to earn a modest income to meet the bare needs of the family, if not more. In those days unless one earned at least Rs. 1,200 to Rs. 1,500 per month, the sustenance of the family could not be taken care of. Moreover, he had long years to go but for his being taken away by the cruel hands of death. It is legitimate to believe that his income would have increased manifold in future. Estimate of his contribution to the family at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per month, in our opinion, is based on a very modest calculation inasmuch as during say about 40 years of his future life, his contribution would have been much more than this. 9. It is not known how the Tribunal chose the figure of 24 to use it as a multiplier of Rs. 12,000 which was assessed to be the annual dependency. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in K.S.R.T.C. v. Susamma Thomas 1994 (1) KLT 67, have observed that the multiplier method is the appropriate method, a departure from which can only be justified in rare and extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases. Their Lordships have explained the method as follows: "The multiplier represents the number of years' purchase on which the loss of dependency is capitalised. Take for instance a case where annual loss of dependency is Rs. 10,000. If a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 is invested at 10 per cent annual interest, the interest will take care of the dependency, perpetually. The multiplier in this case works out to 10. If the rate of interest is 5 per cent per annum and not 10 per cent then the multiplier needed to capitalise, the loss of the annual dependency at Rs. 10,000 would be 20. Then the multiplier, i.e. the number of years' purchase of 20 will yield the annual dependency perpetually. The multiplier in this case works out to 10. If the rate of interest is 5 per cent per annum and not 10 per cent then the multiplier needed to capitalise, the loss of the annual dependency at Rs. 10,000 would be 20. Then the multiplier, i.e. the number of years' purchase of 20 will yield the annual dependency perpetually. The allowance to scale down the multiplier would have to be made taking into account the uncertainties of the future, the allowances for immediate lump sum payment, the period over which the dependency is to last being shorter and the capital feed also to be spent away over the period of dependency is to last etc. Usually in English Courts the operative multiplier rarely exceeds 16 as maximum. This will come down accordingly as the age of the deceased person (or that of the dependants, whichever is higher) goes up." 10. The deceased met his death at the age of 26, while his wife (Petitioner No. 1) was aged only 25. In view of the loss of dependency for a long period the multiplier to be used in this case should be the maximum, i.e. 16. Since the annual dependency was fixed at Rs. 12,000, the amount of compensation under this head should have been Rs. 1,92,000. 11. Loss of consortium of the widow at the prime of her youth calls for liberal grant of compensation on that account. We are, therefore, inclined to enhance the amount of compensation for the loss of consortium from Rs. 8,000 to Rs. 15,000. We would also hold that the compensation for pain and suffering at least should have been fixed at Rs. 3,000 instead of Rs. 2,000 which we do so. 12. Though we assess the compensation at Rs. 2,10,000 the claim being only for Rs. 2,00,000 (Rupees two lakhs only), we allow the same. Compensation under other heads is not separately awarded though the claimants deserve the same. In our opinion, therefore, the just compensation should be a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs for the claimants. 13. The learned counsel for the insurer (Appellant in M. F. A. No. 755/89) has contended that the learned Tribunal committed an error of law in directing the insurer to pay the whole amount in excess of the statutory limit of Rs. 1,50,000. The liability of this appellant, therefore, may be reduced to Rs. 1,50,000. 2 lakhs for the claimants. 13. The learned counsel for the insurer (Appellant in M. F. A. No. 755/89) has contended that the learned Tribunal committed an error of law in directing the insurer to pay the whole amount in excess of the statutory limit of Rs. 1,50,000. The liability of this appellant, therefore, may be reduced to Rs. 1,50,000. The contention is justified. There is no dispute that the deceased was a third party and the lorry, which was a goods vehicle, was insured with the appellant insurer and the policy (Ext. B-1) stood valid on the date of the occurrence of the accident. Clause (a) of sub-s.(2) of S.95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as it stood then, reads as follows: "95. Requirements of policies and limits of liability. (1) * * * * * * (2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to the following limits, namely: (a) where the vehicle is a goods vehicle, a limit of one lakh and fifty thousand rupees in all, including the liabilities, if any, arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, employees other than the driver, not exceeding six in number, being carried in the vehicle." A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. v. Roy George 1993 (1) KLT 308 , laid down that the insurer is not under S.96(1) liable to the claimants for the entire amount covered by the judgment but only upto the extent covered by S.95(1)(b) read with S.95(2). The basic liability of the insurer is only to the statutory liability covered by S.95(1)(b) read with S.95(2). Therefore, the liability of the insurance company was restricted to the statutory liability and not to the extent of the entire liability. The Full Bench referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in M. K. Kunhimohammed v. P. A. Ahmedkutty and others 1987 A.C.J. 872; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore and others AIR 1988 SC 719 , among others and came to the aforesaid conclusion. 14. We, therefore, hold that in this case the liability of the insurer (Appellant in M.F.A. No. 755/89) extends only upto the limit of Rs. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore and others AIR 1988 SC 719 , among others and came to the aforesaid conclusion. 14. We, therefore, hold that in this case the liability of the insurer (Appellant in M.F.A. No. 755/89) extends only upto the limit of Rs. 1,50,000 and does not extend to the whole of the amount which has been awarded by this judgment. It is open to the claimants to recover the balance amount of Rs. 50,000 with interest thereon from the owner of the vehicle (Respondent No. 1), if they are so advised. 15. In the result, the award of the Tribunal is modified. We hold that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 10th February 1987. The first claimant (widow of the deceased) is entitled to get Rs. 1,60,000; the second claimant (the mother of the deceased) is entitled to get Rs. 25,000 and the third claimant (father of the deceased) is entitled to get Rs. 15,000 out of the compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs with proportionate interest. Since the liability of the insurance company is limited to Rs. 1,50,000 the appellant insurance company shall pay Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only) to claimant No. 1, Rs. 30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand only) to claimant No. 2 and Rs. 20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only) to claimant No. 3 with proportionate interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. In case, any amount has been deposited by the insurance company, as directed by this Court in C.M.P. No. 31101 of 1989, and the same has been withdrawn by the claimants, it shall be adjusted towards the award amount with interest and interest on the balance amount, if any, that is due shall accrue on and from the date when the deposited amount was withdrawn instead of the date of filing of the claim petition. 16. Out of the amount of Rupees one lakh awarded in favour of claimant No. 1, a sum of Rs. 50,000 shall be deposited as fixed deposit for a period of twenty years in any nationalised bank and she may withdraw the interest that would accrue thereon periodically as and when required. 16. Out of the amount of Rupees one lakh awarded in favour of claimant No. 1, a sum of Rs. 50,000 shall be deposited as fixed deposit for a period of twenty years in any nationalised bank and she may withdraw the interest that would accrue thereon periodically as and when required. But, however if any urgent necessity arises for withdrawal of a portion of the principal amount, she may approach the Tribunal for permission to withdraw the same and the Tribunal, if satisfied, may allow it. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.