Judgement BARUAH, J.:-This Miscellaneous First Appeal is directed against the Award dt. 17-2-89 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Goalpara in M.A.C. Case No. 3 of 1987 awarding Rs. 2,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realisation. 2. Respondent No. 1 for herself and on behalf of her minor children - respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 submitted a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 2,80,000/-. She claimed compensation on the ground that her husband Prakash Chandra Bothra died in an accident caused by State Transport Corporation bus (ASX 2709) at 5 p.m. on 29-11-86. According to the claim petition, the driver of the said bus drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and due to the negligence and carelessness of the Conductor the deceased fell down from the bus and sustained injuries and later on succumbed to his injuries. In usual course the appellant - State Transport Corporation entered appearance and contested the claim by filing a written statement. In the written statement the appellant took the usual plea like - that the claim petition was not maintainable, there was no cause of action, the averments made in the petition were false and baseless, claim was excessive and imaginary and that had been made without any basis. Besides, the claimant had, no right to file the claim petition and the bus was not involved in the accident. 3. Four issues were framed, namely, (1) whether there was any cause of action; (2) whether there was any rash and negligence in driving the vehicle by the driver or whether there was any negligence on the part of the conductor; (3) whether the claimants were entitled to get any compensation, if so to what extent and (4) whether the claimants were entitled to get any other relief under the law and equity. 4. The claimant examined 6 witnesses, namely, Kula Bhushan Das, Mohibul Hussain, Kobad Ali, claimant herself, Rupchand Bothra and Tarachand Bothra. The Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the claimant. The Tribunal held that though the claimant was entitled to get Rs. 3,14,000/- in all, she was awarded compensation of Rs. 2,80,000/- only as she claimed that amount minus Rs. The Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the claimant. The Tribunal held that though the claimant was entitled to get Rs. 3,14,000/- in all, she was awarded compensation of Rs. 2,80,000/- only as she claimed that amount minus Rs. 15,000/- which she had already received by way of interim relief and, therefore, the respondent No. 1 - claimant would get Rs. 2,65,000/- in addition to Rs. 15,000/- she had already received. Besides, the Tribunal granted interest at the rate of 12% per annum till realisation of the said amount from the appellant and the appellant was directed to pay the amount early. Hence the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant urged before us that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded the compensation mainly on the ground that there was no proof that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver and also due to the negligence of the Conductor. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the amount of compensation was too excessive and based on no data. The Tribunal awarded the compensation following wrong principles of law and, therefore, the award should be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the award. He submitted that the tribunal after proper scrutiny of the evidence on record found that the accident took place due to gross negligence on the part of the driver and the conductor as a result of which the deceased Prakash Chandra Bothra fell down from the bus sustained injuries and thereafter, he succumbed to his injuries. On the point of awarding compensation also the learned counsel submitted that the tribunal after applying the correct principles of law awarded the compensation. 6. Points now fall for determination are - (1) whether there was any negligence or rashness on the part of the driver and the conductor in driving the vehicle as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries and later on succumbed to his injuries and (2) whether proper compensation has been awarded. 7. POINT NO. 1 : Witness No. 3 on behalf of the claimant, namely, Kobad Ali stated in his deposition that on the date of occurrence at about 4.30 p.m. he was coming to bazar from his house in a transport bus (No. ASX 2709). 7. POINT NO. 1 : Witness No. 3 on behalf of the claimant, namely, Kobad Ali stated in his deposition that on the date of occurrence at about 4.30 p.m. he was coming to bazar from his house in a transport bus (No. ASX 2709). He got into the bus through the front door and was standing near the partition. Before reaching the transport stand the conductor of the bus rang the bell to stop the bus near the road leading to No. 2 Coloney. The bus was slowed down and, thereafter, bell was rung again and the driver suddenly started the bus swiftly. The person named Prakash was standing by holding a pipe stand near the door. He was thrown off as a result of the jerk and the rear wheel of the bus ran over his belly. Thereafter, the bus was immediately stopped. There was no door in the bus. It was a State Transport bus. The pipe stand fitted in the bus was slippery for its regular use. He and other co-passengers also received jolt. He was cross-examined. However, nothing could be brought out to discard his evidence. Witness No. 2 Mohibul Hussain in his evidence stated that Baki Billa Khalifa who was the conductor of the bus No. ASX 2709 at the relevant time was suspended by the A. S. T. Corporation. 8. From the evidence of witness No. 3 it is clear that the conductor without taking proper care rang the bell and the driver speeded up the vehicle without caring for safety of the passengers and as a result the deceased Prakash Chandra Bothra who was standing by holding a pipe stand fell down and the rear wheel of the bus ran over him. The said State Transport bus did not have the door. From the above it is clear that there was negligence on the part of the conductor and driver in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently without caring for the safety of the passengers. The appellant Corporation was also negligent in not providing the doors which were essential for the safety of the passengers. The Tribunal was, therefore, fully justified in holding that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently without caring for the safety of the passengers. In view of the above, we do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. 9. The Tribunal was, therefore, fully justified in holding that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently without caring for the safety of the passengers. In view of the above, we do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. 9. POINT NO. 2: The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the quantum of compensation as according to him the compensation was too high and the said compensation was awarded by the tribunal without any basis. 10. Under the Motor vehicles Act it is the duty of the Tribunal to award just compensation. In England under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1846, damages could be awarded proportionate to the injury resulting from such death to the dependants. The Courts in England observed that a dependant was entitled by clear principle of law to full compensation for the loss of pecuniary benefit due to the death of the deceased in a motor accident. The same principle had been followed in other countries What is recoverable by the dependant should be calculated on the basis of "restitutio in integrum", the aim is to restore the dependant to the financial position he or she would have occupied but for the death. For paying compensation, interest method was also used. Under the said method, the annual loss of dependency as on the date of the death was first ascertained and then a sum was determined, on which the interest was granted as compensation towards future loss of dependency. When such a sum was awarded. the dependant enjoyed the periodical interest which was equivalent to the lass of dependency. But the lump sum amount which was paid did not extinguish. So, it was a case of over compensation. Courts in India did not approve this method. A lump sum method was adopted. As per that method, the annual loss for each of the future years of expected life of the deceased was first ascertained. The sum was totalled up. Some courts felt that the entire amount without any deduction had to be paid while other Courts felt that some deduction had to be made. However, this method also did not find favour in the later decisions. The supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti, 1966 ACJ 57 : ( AIR 1966 SC 1750 ) (SC), adopted the traditional multiplier system in granting compensation. However, this method also did not find favour in the later decisions. The supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti, 1966 ACJ 57 : ( AIR 1966 SC 1750 ) (SC), adopted the traditional multiplier system in granting compensation. In such a system the annual value of the dependency at the time of death of the deceased is multiplied by a multiplier depending upon the age of the deceased and various other factors. Whatever is the method that has to be adopted in assessing just and full compensation payable to the dependants of the deceased in motor accident cases, it is realised that such assessment is difficult and complicated. But at the same time the approach has to be made upon logical basis. Generally there is no much difficulty in calculating the annual figure of the dependency as on the death of the deceased. It is ascertained by deducting the amount that had to be spent for the personal expenses and expenses for his food, clothing, etc. from his annual income. Only difficulty that may arise is choosing the multiplier. The Supreme Court adopted the maximum multiplier of 20. But, various guidelines for choosing such a multiplier are not discernible. In some cases multiplier of 15 is taken and in other 20. Then again a question arises, a person may, out of love and affection to the children and wife, contribute more amount to his dependants. Taking a reasonable view it is to be seen whether the amount awarded is sufficient or not. 11. In the present case, the tribunal held that the deceased was 24 years of age and he was earning Rs. 1400/-. A deduction of Rs. 200/- for his personal use, etc. was made. Thereafter an amount of Rs. 1200/- was available to the dependant. This amount might have increased in future. However, the amount that may be made available to the dependants may vary. Some may retain less amount for their own use some may retain more. Therefore, keeping Rs. 200/- for personal use may not be incorrect. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, multiplier of 20 may be appropriate. The tribunal has, therefore, correctly applied multiplier of 20. We find nothing wrong in it. Accordingly, using the multiplier of 20 the tribunal held that the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 2,88,000/- i.e. 1200/- x 12 x 20. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, multiplier of 20 may be appropriate. The tribunal has, therefore, correctly applied multiplier of 20. We find nothing wrong in it. Accordingly, using the multiplier of 20 the tribunal held that the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 2,88,000/- i.e. 1200/- x 12 x 20. Besides, according to the tribunal, the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 10,000/- for mental shock and pain; the wife would be entitled to Rs.10,000/- for loss of conjugal life; Rs.5,000/- for Sradha and Rs.1,000/- as legal expenses. But as the claimants made a claim for Rs. 2,80,000/-, the tribunal awarded Rs.2,65,000/- in addition to Rs.15,000/already received by the claimants by way of interim relief. We do not like to express any opinion as to whether the claimant was entitled to Rs.26,000/- referred to in the award which the tribunal felt that the claimant was entitled to, in view of the fact that the tribunal has disallowed the said amount. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned award. The multiplier of 20 applied by the tribunal has the support of the decision of the Supreme Court. 12. In view of the above, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant on this ground also fails. We do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 13. S.N.PHUKAN, C.J.(Actg.) :-. I agree. Appeal dismissed.