N.G.Das, J- Both these appeals by the rival parties arise out of the award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala (the Court of Additional District Judge Shri BK Goswami, West Tripura, Agartaia) in Claim Case No. TS (MAC) 7 of 1990 dated 16th June, 1992. 2. The accident in which Sachindra Kumar Das lost his life occurred on 16.8.1989 at about 8.30 AM on Assam - Agartala Road at a place called Baramura. On that day sometime before the accident Sachindra Kumar Das along with 7/8 other persons boarded a jeep bearing No.2341 at Motor Stand, Agartala to go to Khowai. The jeep with the above passengers left Agartala Motor Stand sometime before 8.30 AM and when it reached at 17th Mile it suddenly collided with a vehicle belonging to GREF Company bearing No.86-C 18063 MD WED 755-718 which was coming from the opposite direction and as a consequence of that collision all the passengers of the jeep sustained severe injuries on their bodies and the injuries sustained by the driver of the jeep were so serious that he died instantaneously. Deceased Sachindra Kumar Das who also sustained severe injuries on his person was brought to GB Hospital, Agartala at about 11.30 AM but he was declared dead on the same day at 12.10 PM. 3. A police case being Jirania PS CaseNo.l2<8) 89 under section 279/3387 304 (A) of IPC was registered. The members of the family of the deceased were not aware of this accident until 21.8.89 when on enquiry the son of the deceased, namely, Tarun Kumar Das came to know from some officials of GB Hospital, Agartala that on 16.8.89 some persons died on account of some motor accident at Baramura. He also came to know from the officials of the GB Hospital, Agartala that dead body of a person was kept in the morgue until noon of 21.8.1989 when it was burried in the Battala Cremation Ground. Thereafter the officials showed him one pen and a wrist watch of that deceased person. On seeing those articles Tarun Kanti Das, the son of the deceased identified those to be of his father. Thereafter he moved some application to the Executive Magistrate for disintering the dead body. Thereafter the officials showed him one pen and a wrist watch of that deceased person. On seeing those articles Tarun Kanti Das, the son of the deceased identified those to be of his father. Thereafter he moved some application to the Executive Magistrate for disintering the dead body. Accordingly, permission was given and the dead body was disintered when he found that the dead body which was burried was the dead body of his father. 4. The claimant thereafter enquired about the incident and came to know that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle belonging to GREF COY. So, claimant No. l Smti Rekha Rani Das wife of the deceased, claimant No.2 Shri Ratan Kumar Das, claimant No.4 Tarun Kumar Das, claimant No.6 Master Sishir Kumar Das, sons of the deceased, claimant No.3 Smti Mina Rani Das, daughter of the deceased and claimant No.7 Smti Gayashwari Das, mother of the deceased instituted the aforesaid case against the GREF Company and the owner of the jeep for compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (abbreviated hereinafter as the Act) for loss of pecuniary benefits sustained by them. It was stated that at the time of death deceased was a Junior Surveyor under the Directorate of Land Records and Settlement. Government of Tripura and his monthly income was Rs.3,285/-. The claimants, therefore, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.4,33,2527-. 5. The Chief Engineer, Puspak, C/O 99 APO and the Commandant, 755 BRTF, C/O 99 APO resisted the claim petition by filing a joint written objection wherein they contended, inter alia, that the occurrence had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep in which the deceased was travellling. The owner of jeep TRT 2341 who was subsequently made a party also resisted the claim petition by filing a written objection wherein it was contended that the accident had taken place not because the driver of the jeep was at fault but because the heavy vehicle belonging to GREF Company was moving at an excessive speed and it was due to the rash and negligent driving of that vehicle the accident occurred. 6. The learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed the following issues for determination of the claim petition : 1. 6. The learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed the following issues for determination of the claim petition : 1. Whether late Sachindra Kumar Das, S/o late Dwarika Mohan Das died on 16.8.89 due to motor accident and the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.86-C 18063/ MD WED 765-718 ? 2. If so, what should be the quantum of the compensation payable to the claimant and who is liable to pay the compensation? 3. To what relief or reliefs are claimants/petitioners entitled? 7. The claimants and the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. Learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after appreciation of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the vehicle belonging to the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 was driven at reckless speed at the scene of accident and that this accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of their vehicle. Learned Member thereafter made the finding that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.3,285/- per mensem and his age was 51 years at the time of accident. He, therefore, applied the multiplier 7 and deducted a sum of Rs.6007- for the personal expenses of the deceased per mensem. He thus came to the conclusion that the legal representatives of the deceased would be entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,25,540/- (Rs.3,285-600 = Rs.2,685 x 12 x 7). Out of this amount he deducted 10% as standard deduction and as such the amount come to Rs.2,02,985/-. Learned Member of the Claims Tribunal also held the view that since the deceased was a Government servant he would be entitled to get pension on his superannuation and he held that deceased would at least get Rs.400/- as pension in a month. He, however, deducted Rs.200/ - from this Rs.400/- as personal expenses and granted a sum of Rs. 16,800/- as compensation under the head of pension for a period of 7 years. Learned Member thus came to the conclusion that the legal representatives of the deceased would be entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,34,800/- and they would also be entitled to get interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 29.1.90. 8. The aforesaid appeals are against this award. 9. Learned Member thus came to the conclusion that the legal representatives of the deceased would be entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,34,800/- and they would also be entitled to get interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 29.1.90. 8. The aforesaid appeals are against this award. 9. In view of the appeal and cross-appeal the first question for consideration is whether the accident was due to any negligence on the part of the driver of GREF Company. The claimants examined 2 witnesses, namely, PW1 Shri Tarun Kumar Das, the son of the deceased and PW 2 Ashish Kumar Ghosh who was a passenger of the jeep at the time of accident and who also sustained injuries on his person. The appellant GREF Company examined 2 witnesses, namely, OPW 1 Jamini Mohan Das who was the driver of the offending vehicle and one DK Joshi, an employee of the GREF Company. 10. PW 2 Ashish Kumar Ghosh who was travelling in the jeep at the time of accident deposed that when the jeep was negotiating an upgrading the vehicle belonging to the GREF Company was coming from the opposite direction at a high speed and knocked down the jeep and due to this dashing by such a heavy vehicle the jeep capsized and fell beside the road on the drain. OPW 1 Jamini Mohan Das who is the driver of that vehicle of the GREF Company did not deny the accident. But according to him the driver of the jeep was at the fault and at the time of crossing, the jeep struck on the back of his vehicle. He is, however, silent about the statement of PW 2 that at the time of accident the jeep was negotiating an upgrading. Similarly, the other witness, namely, OPW 2 DK Joshi who was seated in the vehicle belonging to the GREF Company said nothing about the statement of PW 2 that at the time of accident the jeep was negotiating an upgrading and that was a turning. 11. Ext.5 the certified copy of the charge-sheet which was submitted in connection with this occurrence shows that the vehicle being No.86-C 18063 i.e. the vehicle belonging to the GREF Company dashed the jeep rashly and negligently. 11. Ext.5 the certified copy of the charge-sheet which was submitted in connection with this occurrence shows that the vehicle being No.86-C 18063 i.e. the vehicle belonging to the GREF Company dashed the jeep rashly and negligently. The Investigating Officer also made a site plan of the place of occurrence and alleged that it was because of rash driving of the vehicle of GREF Company the accident had taken place. So, the evidence of PW 2 is reinforced by the charge-sheet. It is in the evidence that due to this collision the jeep capsized on the drain beside the road. This fact also gives rise to a presumption that the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver of the GREF Company. We have gone through the evidence adduced by the opposite party Nos. l and 2 but in view of the evidence, particularly, the place at which the accident occurred, we are of the view that the vehicle belonging to the GREF Company was being driven negligently and rashly. We therefore, see no flaw in the conclusion arrived at by the Member of the Claims Tribunal. 12. Now as regards the liability of the GREF Company it may be stated that the scope of the liability of a master for the negligence of his servant has been succinctly stated by Baron Parke in Joel vs. Morison, (1834) 6 Car & P. 501 : 172 ER 1338 thus : " The master is only liable where the servant is acting in the course of his employment. If he was going out of his way, against his master's implied commands, when driving on his master's business, he will make his master liable, but if he was going on a frolic of his own, without being at all on his master's business, the master will not be liable." Again, in Storey vs. Ashton (1869) 4 OB 476 Cockburn L.C.J. says : “ The true rule is that the master is only responsible so long as the servant can be said to be doing the act, in the doing of which he is guilty of negligence, in the course of his employment as servant." 13. In view of our findings made above we hold that on account of the negligence of the driver of GREF Company in course of the employment, the said accident happened and therefore, the appellants viz GREF Company are liable therefor. 14. The next question which calls for consideration is whether the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was right in awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.2,34,800/- for the pecuniary loss sustained by the legal representatives of the deceased Sachindra Kumar Das. It may be noted herethat the appellants preferred the appeal being MA (F) No. 66 of 1992 for escalation of compensation while the respondents of this appeal preferred appeal MA (F) No. 70 of 1992 for reduction of the compensation. The mode of assessment of damages is not free from doubt. It is beset with certain difficulties. It depends on many imponderables. Viscount Simon in Nance vs. Eritish Columbia Electric Railway Col. Ltd., 1951 AC 601 put the principle at page 614 : "The claim for damages in the present case falls under two separate heads. First, if the deceased had not been killed, but had eked out the full span of life to which in the absence of the accident he could reasonably have looked forward, what sums during that period would be probably have applied out of his income to the maintenance of his wife and family." 15. In Gobald Motor Service Ltd. & another vs. RMK Veluswami & others, the Supreme Court held that the actual extent of the pecuniary loss to the dependants may depend upon data which cannot be ascertained accurately, but must necessarily be an estimate, or even partly a conjecture. Shortly stated, the general principle is that the pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing on the one hand the loss of the claimants of the future pecuniary benefit and on the other any pecuniary advantage which from whatever source comes to them by reason of death, that is, the balance of loss and gain to a dependant by the death must be ascertained. 16. In the case of C.K. Subramania Iyer & others vs. T.Kunhi Nai & others, reported in 1970 ACJ 110 the Supreme Court took in view the rules ascertained by the English Courts set out in Windfield on Torts 7 th Edn. at page 135 and 136. 16. In the case of C.K. Subramania Iyer & others vs. T.Kunhi Nai & others, reported in 1970 ACJ 110 the Supreme Court took in view the rules ascertained by the English Courts set out in Windfield on Torts 7 th Edn. at page 135 and 136. It was stated that the number of years' purchase is left fluid, from twelve to fifteen has been quite a common multiple in the case of a healthy man, and the number should not be materially reduced by reason of the hazardous nature of the occupation of the deceased man. 17. Keeping the above principles in view we now proceed to ascertain the actual extent of the pecuniary loss to the dependants. It is however, necessary to mention here that at the very outset a question arose as to whether any deduction can be made in respect of the amount received by the claimants as gratuity, provident fund, leave encashment and proceeds of the life insurance following the death of the deceased etc. But it has not actually been disputed that it has been decided in a number of decisions by the Apex Court that no deduction should be made from the compensation on account of gratuity, pension, provident fund and insurance money. 18. Here the real question in controversy is whether the amount which the deceased was paying towards his General Provident Fund should be included as a pecuniary loss to the family for the purpose of estimating the sum to be paid as compensation. Mr. A.Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants argues that the amount which the deceased was paying towards his General Provident Fund should not be excluded for the purpose of assessment of the compensation. We are, however, unable to agree with the submission of Mr.Chakraborty as the real question which needs consideration is what was the actual extent of the pecuniary loss to the family on account of the death of the deceased. To ascertain the actual extent of loss the Tribunal is also required to fix such compensation which would appear to be just. The word 'just' employed in the section is of very wide amplitude. In the case of M/s Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. & another vs.Northern India Transporters Insurance Co. To ascertain the actual extent of loss the Tribunal is also required to fix such compensation which would appear to be just. The word 'just' employed in the section is of very wide amplitude. In the case of M/s Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. & another vs.Northern India Transporters Insurance Co. Ltd & another ( AIR 1971 SC 1624 ) it was observed by the Supreme Court as follows: " Under section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the Tribunal is required to fix such compensation which appears to it to be just. The power given to the Tribunal in the matter of fixing compensation under that provision is wide......the pecuniary loss to the aggrieved party would depend upon data which cannot be ascertained accurately but must necessarily be an estimate or even partly a conjecture." 19. In the instant case although Mr.Chakraborty has submitted certificate issued by the Director of Land Records and Settlement, Government of Tripura to show that the deceased was contributing a sum of Rs.600/- per mensem towards his GPF. Actually this fact was not brought on record during trial. Therefore, the contesting parties had no scope to challenge the authenticity of this document. However, keeping the aforesaid dictum of the Supreme Court in view, we are of the view that to ascertain the actual extent of pecuniary loss to the family at least 1/3 rd of the total gross salary should be deducted. Since the deduction of Rs.600/- per mensem towards GPF has hot been brought on record we are inclined to deduct a sum of Rs. 1,300/- as personal expenses of the deceased per mensem. Admittedly the deceased paid a sum of Rs.370/- as income tax annually (Ext.l). So to find out the net amount which was being spent for the family in a month we will have to deduct this amount from the total amount of a year. The sum thus comes to Rs.23,630/- (Rs.24,000-370). 20. As already stated the number of years' purchase is left fluid, from twelve to fifteen has been quite a common multiple in the case of a healthy man. So, in this case we apply multiplier 15. The sum thus comes to Rs.23,630/- (Rs.24,000-370). 20. As already stated the number of years' purchase is left fluid, from twelve to fifteen has been quite a common multiple in the case of a healthy man. So, in this case we apply multiplier 15. Learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was wrong in applying multiplier 7 and also calculating the pension sum as compensation as according to office Memorandum No.F.8 (7) FIN (G)/88 (I), dated 27th September, 1988 issued by the Government of Tripura Family Pension is available to the legal representatives of the deceased and this family pension is not deductible from the total amount of compensation to be awarded. It is not disputed that deceased was aged 51 years at the time of death. The Supreme Court in the case of Jyotsna Dey & others- vs. State of Assam & others, reported in 1987 AC J172 held that life span should be 70 years in view o'f high rise in life expectancy. So, in view of our findings made above we fix the yearly pecuniary loss to the family at Rs.23,630/-. On the basis of this calculation the total compensation works out to be Rs.3,54,450/- (Rs.23,630 x 15). This finding cannot, however, dispose of the case as some other controversy is also involved. 21. In the case of Hira Devi vs. Smti Bhaba Kanti Das & others, reported in AIR 1977 Gauhati 31 the Full Court held that 20% should be deducted for uncertainty of life. It may also be mentioned here that findings in Hira Devi's case with respect to deduction for uncertainties of life was not set aside in the case of Smti Saminder Kaur & another, reported in (1986) 1GLR 446. In that decision 3 question which the Full Bench decided are : 1. Whether gratuity, family pension and other benefits attached to the service conditions of an employee are deductible from compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act to his legal representatives in the case of his death in a motor accident? 2. If and when any amount due under a policy of insurance taken by the deceased can be deducted to such a case? 3. Whether the tort-fessor in such cases is entitled to set of any advantage derived from him by any legal represantatives and, if so to what extent ? 22. 2. If and when any amount due under a policy of insurance taken by the deceased can be deducted to such a case? 3. Whether the tort-fessor in such cases is entitled to set of any advantage derived from him by any legal represantatives and, if so to what extent ? 22. It would, therefore, be quite apparent that the decision of the Full Bench in respect of the deduction towards uncertainties of life and deduction for payment in lump were not disturbed. In Jyotsna Dey & others vs. The State of Assam & others (supra) an amount was also deducted on account of uncertainties of life. So, after the aforesaid deduction of 20% the sum comes to Rs.2,83,560/- (Rs.3,54,450-70,890). Since the amount is going to be paid in lump a further 10% has to be deducted in view of the Full Bench decision in Hira Devi's case. After deduction of this 10% the net amount comes to Rs.2,55,204/- (Rs.2,83,560-28,356). 23. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,0007-towards loss, pain etc. of the survivors. There is practically no evidence to the effect that the legal representatives suffered any sort of pain etc. However, we are of the view that at least a sum of Rs. 10,000/- should be paid towards consortium. The net amount is thus fixed at Rs.2,65,204/- (Rs.2,55,204+10,000). Out of this sum the amount which has already been paid be deducted. The appellants, namely, the legal representatives of the deceased would be entitled to recover this sum with interest at the rate of 12% per annum calculated from the date of the claim. 24. After 3 days of the closure of the arguments Mr.Chakraborry, the learned senior counsel placed reliance upon a decision of this Court reported in AIR 1995 Gauhati 2. In that case some amount was given to the legal representatives towards expenses of Shraddha Ceremony, mental shock, loss of conjugal life etc. But in the instant case it may be mentioned here that there is no iota of evidence to show what amount of money was spent for Shraddha Ceremony. There is also no evidence in respect of mental shock and pain. But in the instant case it may be mentioned here that there is no iota of evidence to show what amount of money was spent for Shraddha Ceremony. There is also no evidence in respect of mental shock and pain. As regards application of the multiplier we have already stated above that the Supreme Court in the case of CK Subramania Iyer & others vs. T.Kunhi Kuttan Nair & others (supra) took in view the rules ascertained by the English Courts set out in Windfield on Torts 7th Edn. at pages 135 where it was stated that the number of years' purchase is left fluid from twelve to fifteen has been quite a common multiple in the case of a healthy man and the number should not be materially reduced by reason of the hazardous nature of the occupation of the deceased man. 25. Keeping the aforesaid decision in view and considering the facts of the present case we have considered that multiplier 15 would be appropriate in this case to award just compensation. 26. Now it appears from the records that Ratan Kumar Das is a Sub-Inspector of Police. He will, therefore, be not entitled to get any compensation. The rest legal representatives would get the compensation in equal share. It further appears that two sons of the deceased, namely, Sishir Kumar Das and Kishore Kumar Das are minors. So, their shares are to be deposited in the State Bank of India under the Fixed Deposit Scheme withdrawable with the permission of the District Judge. 27. In view of the above findings we set aside the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and allow the appeal MA (F) No.66 of 1992. The appeal MA (F) No.70 of 1992 is dismissed with costs.