JUDGMENT Arun Kumar God, J. : Present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -II, Kangra District at Dharamsala in M.A.C.P.No.l9-K/94 dated 30-ll-1995. Tribunal below has passed an award in favour of the respondents No.l to 7, (hereinafter referred to as the claimants) and against the appellants as well as respondents No. 8 to 9 holding all of them jointly and severely liable in the sum of Rs.5,60,000/- with cost of Rs.550/- and interest at the rate of 12 % PA. from the date of filing of petition i.e. 5-5- 1994 till the date of deposit/payment, this is inclusive of amount, if any, already deposited under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It has been further ordered that in the event of amount being not deposited within 30 days from 30-11-1995, they would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 15 % P.A. from the aforesaid date till the payment/deposit. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this case are that a claim petition was filed by the claimants under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal below claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Case of the claimants was that late Shri Om Parkash Chadha was working as an Assistant in the Irrigation and Public Health Department of Public Works of Himachal Pradesh and was posted in the office of Executive Engineer I and PH Division, Dehra at the time of his death. Date of birth of the deceased was 20-8-1939 and salary being drawn by him was Rs.4680/- as per Last Pay Certificate. Accident is stated to have occurred on 26-2-1994 at 7-00 P.M. at Bus Stand, Kangra. Case of the claimants further was that the deceased was to go to his native village Gang Bhairon and he was a passenger in the bus which was being driven by respondent No.8 and respondent No.9 was the conductor thereof. In order to catch the connecting bus for Bagli, after the bus had stopped at Bus Stand Kangra, conductor had got down from the front door and other passengers were also getting down. When the deceased was about to alight from this bus, the driver-respondent No.8 started moving the bus with the result that the deceased fell down and sustained injuries on his right side under the rear tyres. When the deceased was about to alight from this bus, the driver-respondent No.8 started moving the bus with the result that the deceased fell down and sustained injuries on his right side under the rear tyres. This act, on the part of the driver, was stated to be rash and negligent resulting in the death of the deceased. It has come on record that the deceased was firstly taken in taxi to the hospital at Kangra from there he was referred to Zonal Hospital at Dharamsala where he finally succumbed to his injuries on that very day. 3. It is not in dispute that the bus belonged to Punjab Roadways, Nangal Depot and was being driven by respondent No.8 and respondent No.9 was the conductor thereof. It has come on record that the accident was reported to the police of Police Station, Kangra and F.I.R. was lodged vide No.95 of 1994 on 26-2-1994 at 7-45 P.M. vide Ex. PWl/A. 4. Claim of the claimants was resisted and contested, both, by the appellants as well as by the Respondents No. 8 and 9. Respondents No. 8 and 9 filed a common written statement whereas appellants filed another common written statement. The stand of respondents No. 8 and 9, in the written statement, was that there was no rashness much less negligence on the part of the driver or the conductor. According to both these respondents, the accident was the result of negligence on the part of the deceased, who in order to catch the connecting bus to his native village, fell down on the road alter he had jumped from the moving bus. In these circumstances, the accident was directly attributed to the acts of the deceased and thus the liability was disputed. It was further pleaded that the petition is not maintainable. On similar line was the defence of the appellants. 5. In the replication filed on behalf of the claimants, the pleas raised by the appellants as well as respondents in their respective written statements were denied. 6. On the aforesaid pleadings, the parties went to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether Shri Om Parkash deceased had died in a motor vehicle accident on 26-2-1994 at about 7-00 P.M. at bus stand, Kangra on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 3 while driving bus No. PB-12A-8403 ? O.P.P. 2. 6. On the aforesaid pleadings, the parties went to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether Shri Om Parkash deceased had died in a motor vehicle accident on 26-2-1994 at about 7-00 P.M. at bus stand, Kangra on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 3 while driving bus No. PB-12A-8403 ? O.P.P. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents ? O.P.P. 3. Relief. 7. In support of their claim, claimants examined PW-1, who had recorded the FIR., copy whereof on the file was proved as Ex.PW-1/A. PW-2 is claimant No. 1, Smt. Santosh Chadha, widow of the deceased. She has placed on record Ex. PW-2-A, original matriculation certificate of the deceased, which shows the date of birth of the deceased as 20-8-1939. According to her, the deceased was working as Senior Assistant and she has also placed on record heirship as well as dependence certificate issued by the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat at which shows that the claimants are the legal representatives and they were totally depending on the deceased Om Parkash Chadha. According to this witness, his eldest daughter-Suman Chadha, claimant No.2 has since married and other children are all studying and the deceased used to maintain the family. She has further stated that the salary of the deceased was Rs.5,000/-per month. She has denied the suggestion in the cross examination made on behalf of the appellants and respondents No. 8 and 9 that the income of the deceased was Rs.2500/- to Rs.3000/- per month and he was contributing towards house-hold expenses Rs.1,000/- per month only. According to her there is no land and all her children are un-employed. PW-3 is Baldev Singh, who is an eye witness of the accident and who has .given the details and the manner in which accident had occurred, he is the person who had taken the deceased to hospital in a taxi and also informed on phone the police at Police Station at Kangra as also his family members. He has categorically stated that the accident was the result of negligence on the part of the bus driver. In his cross examination, he has withstood the test of cross examination. PW-4 is Daya Ram Sharma, Superintendent, I.P.H. Division, Dehra, who has proved the Last Pay Certificate, Ex. He has categorically stated that the accident was the result of negligence on the part of the bus driver. In his cross examination, he has withstood the test of cross examination. PW-4 is Daya Ram Sharma, Superintendent, I.P.H. Division, Dehra, who has proved the Last Pay Certificate, Ex. P-4/A and has informed that the deceased was to retire on 20-8-1997. According to him, as per Last Pay Certificate, the deceased had been receiving a sum of Rs.4680/-. PW-5 is Dr. C.S. Rathore from Zonal Hospital, Dharamsala who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased - Om Parkash Chadha, S/o Chandu Mal and he has proved on record a copy of the post-mortem report, Ex. PW-5. 8. Against the aforesaid evidence of the claimants, respondent No. 8 Jaswant Singh - driver has appeared as a witness and has stated that the accident in question was not because of any rash and negligent act on his part while working as a driver on the bus in question on the fateful day but it was the result of own acts of negligence of the deceased - Om Parkash Chadha, because he was in hurry to get down so that he could catch a bus going to Bagli for going to his native village. In his this hurry, the deceased is stated to have jumped from the moving bus and fell down on the road. 9. Shri Rajiv Jeevan, learned counsel for the appellants, has raised two fold pleas :- (a) That from the evidence on record, it stood conclusively proved that there was no negligence on the part of respondents 8 and 9 i.e. driver and conductor of the bus in question and, in fact, the accident was the result of sole negligence on the part of Om Parkash Chadha, who in order to catch the connecting bus to Bagli for reaching home, jumped from the moving bus. This resulted in the accident in question for which, entire liability is that of the deceased; (b) Negligence is not proved in the present case so as to hold the appellants and respondents No. 8 and 9 liable for the payment of any compensation; and (c) In the alternative if first two submissions do not find favour, then in that event, the multiplier of 15, applied by the Tribunal below, is not only illegal but contrary to law applicable in that behalf which holds the field. 10. On the other hand, Shri D.D. Sood, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 7 while controverting the submissions made on behalf of the appellants, has pointed out that the multiplier applied is just and reasonable looking to the age of the claimants, the situation in which they have been left after the death of the sole bread winner of the family. According to him, first two submissions regarding negligence of the appellants deserve to be negatived on the evidence on record. According to him, there is no rebuttal to the evidence of PW-3, the eye witness and the factum of accident stood clearly established by immediate registration of the case vide F.I.R. Ex. PW/A. On the question of quantum of compensation, Shri Sood submitted that the amount awarded in no case be reduced and alternatively by taking help from second schedule framed under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which came into force w.e.f. 1-11-1994, Mr. Sood submitted that the multiplier of 11 be applied in accordance with the said schedule. Mr. Sood, while praying for upholding the compensation award, vehemently argued that not only age of the deceased is relevant and material criteria but the ages of the dependents are also required to be taken into account for the said purpose. In the present case, the ages of the claimants, as per Ex. PW-2/B, are as under:- (a) Smt. Santosh Chadha wife 47 years (b) Kumari Suman Chadha daughter 28 years (c) Kumari Meena daughter 26 years (d) Gulshan Chadha son 24 years (e) Kumari Sunita daughter 22 years (0) Rakesh Chadha son 20 years (g) Kumari Jyoti daughter 18 years Thus, he has prayed for the dismissal of the appeal in hand. 11. 11. In so far submissions regarding negligence of the driver as well as the deceased being solely responsible for the accident in question are concerned, those deserve to be rejected outright on the basis of the evidence on record. There is no reason for discarding the evidence of PW-3 coupled with the lodging of F.I.R. So far the statement of respondent No.8 - driver Ranjeet Singh as RW-1 is concerned, firstly it is self serving statements and secondly it does not inspire confidence in the facts, circumstances as well as back ground of the present case. Even otherwise, on the basis of the materials on record, the accident being the result of clear-out negligence on the part of the driver stands duly proved beyond shadow of doubt and thus, those findings are upheld. 12. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last. 13. The determination of the quantum of compensation must answer what contemporary society "would deem to be a fair sum such as would allow that wrong does to hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing". The amount awarded must not be niggardly since the "law values life and limb in a free society in generous scales." All this means that the sum awarded must be fair and reasonable by accepted legal standards. 14. In fatal accident action the measure of damage is the pecuniary loss suffered and is likely to be suffered by each dependent as a result of the death. 14. In fatal accident action the measure of damage is the pecuniary loss suffered and is likely to be suffered by each dependent as a result of the death. Thus except where there is express statutory direction to the contrary, the damages to be awarded to a dependent of a deceased person under the Fatal Accident!; Acts must take into account any pecuniary benefit accruing to that dependant in consequence of the death of the deceased. It is the net loss on balance which constitutes the measure of damages. 15. For assessment of damages to compensate the dependants, it has to take into account many imponderables, e.g., the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether. 16. The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct there from such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number, of years purchase. 17. Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis" and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master" since there are so often many imponderables. In every case "it is the overall picture that matters, and the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered. 18. It may be pointed out here that the Tribunal below has taken the dependence of the respondents at Rs.3,000/- per month on what basis is not spelt out. This amount is neither workable on the multiplier method nor any other basis are mentioned for calculating the same. 18. It may be pointed out here that the Tribunal below has taken the dependence of the respondents at Rs.3,000/- per month on what basis is not spelt out. This amount is neither workable on the multiplier method nor any other basis are mentioned for calculating the same. However, in order to do substantial justice between the parties as well as for the purpose of determining the just compensation payable to the claimants, and by applying the multiplier method, Rs.600/- P.M. is the round figure by considering the units in question and since the deceased was working away from his residence and was going up and down, therefore, another sum of Rs.580/- is taken for such expenses and, thus, after deducting the total expenditure being incurred by the deceased to the tune of Rs.. 1180/-, balance of Rs.3,500/- works out datum figure. 19. Shri D.D. Sood, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 7, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (1992) 2 Supreme Court Cases 567 Hardeo Kaur & Ors. v. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation & Anr., as well as on (1996-1) 112 P.L.R. 742 Jagjit Kaur v. State of Haryana, a decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and has thus prayed that the multiplier of 15 deserves to be upheld and in this behalf he has laid special emphasis in respect of the case pertaining to the deceased Mohinder Singh, who was 54 years and in whose case multiplier of 12 was applied by a learned Single Judge of the said court. While further advancing his submissions, Mr. Sood pointed out that as per observations made in the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Hardeo kaur (supra), liberal consideration needs to be put while allowing the compensation and in this behalf not only the date of retirement but the life span should be normally taken as 70 years in view of high life expectancy. Thus, according to him applying the ratio of aforesaid 2 judgments, the award, according to Mr. Thus, according to him applying the ratio of aforesaid 2 judgments, the award, according to Mr. Sood, deserves to be upheld on the other hand, learned counsel for the appellants, has placed reliance on 3 decisions of the Apex Court reported in (1994) 2 Supreme Court Cases 176, General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thames (Mrs.) & Ors.,; JT 1996 (3) S.C. 252, Smt. Serla Dixit & Anr. v. Balwant Yadav & Ors., and JT 1996 (5) S.C. 356, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Trilok Chandra & Ors.,. He has submitted that in the judgment of Hardeo Kaur (supra) while allowing the multiplier of 24 years in case of death of 36 years old Army Major, no reasoning has been given whereas, according to him, in the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (supra), elaborate reasoning has been given and this judgment properly decides the matter in issue. In this decision of (1994) 2 Supreme Court Cases 176, General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) & Ors., in case of death of a person of 38 years of age multiplier of 12 was applied by the Honble Apex Court. In subsequent judgments of JT 1996 (3) S.C. 252 (supra), in case of death of a 27 years. old Army Officer, multiplier of 15 was applied. In the later judgment of JT 1996 (5) 356, (Supra) the Apex Court has considered the judgment reported in 1994 (2) S.C.C. 176 (Supra) and the multiplier applied in this case was found to be correct and a case was considered where a 35 years of age having an income of Rs.3, 500/- having died in an accident leaving behind his widow and 3 minor children. In such cases, the appropriate multiplier was found to be 15. It may be appropriate to mention that the latest decision reported in JT 1996 (5) 356 (supra) is a decision by 3 Judges Bench whereas the earlier decisions arc of 2 Judges Bench. On the question of practice and procedure of following precedents of the Apex Court, needless to reiterate that the latest judgment needs to be followed. It may be appropriate to mention that the latest decision reported in JT 1996 (5) 356 (supra) is a decision by 3 Judges Bench whereas the earlier decisions arc of 2 Judges Bench. On the question of practice and procedure of following precedents of the Apex Court, needless to reiterate that the latest judgment needs to be followed. It may not be out of place to mention here that where the decisions are given by different Benches of the Apex Court of same number of Judges, the one which is there in the direction of achieving the purpose sought to be achieved by enactment, needs to be followed. In the face of this position, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is pointed out that in the face of subsequent decisions, referred to supra, we are not in respectful agreement with the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, reported in (1996-1) 112 PLR 742 (supra). And in reference to the decision reported in (1992) 2 Supreme Court Cases 567 (supra) we follow the later decisions of the Supreme Court, reported in the subsequent judgments 1994 (2) S.C. 176 (Supra) and 1996 (5) J.T. 356 (supra) it is held that the multiplier in the instant case has to be in no case more than (sic) 20. Now comes the question of working out the amount of just compensation payable by the appellants as well as respondents No.8 & 9 to the claimants. As already observed out of monthly income of Rs.4680/-, the f deceased must be spending a sum of Rs.1,180/- upon himself and thus leaving a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month which is the datum figure and works out the monthly dependence of the family upon him or say Rs.42,000/- per year per annum. Applying the multiplier of 8 to it, the compensation works out to Rs.3, 36,000/-. To this amount of compensation, a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- is added as loss of consortium, another sum of Rs. l0,000/- in the form of conventional amount, Rs.5,000/- as funeral expenses and further Rs..5,000/- as loss of estate. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.3, 66,000/:-. 21. To be fair to Mr. Sood, it is necessary to consider his submission that multiplier of 11 should be applied on the basis of the second schedule of Motor Vehicles Act (Supra). l0,000/- in the form of conventional amount, Rs.5,000/- as funeral expenses and further Rs..5,000/- as loss of estate. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.3, 66,000/:-. 21. To be fair to Mr. Sood, it is necessary to consider his submission that multiplier of 11 should be applied on the basis of the second schedule of Motor Vehicles Act (Supra). In this context, it may be appropriate to point out that multiplier of IInd is not to be taken into account in isolation. In a case like the present one, under II Schedule added to Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the outer limit of compensation payable in the age and income group of the deceased is Rs.4,00,000/- and out of it l/3rd is liable to be deducted. In these circumstances, it would not be proper simply to extract multiplier only from the said schedule without taking into account other factors for assessing the amount of compensation. Accordingly, the submission made by Mr. Sood for applying the multiplier of 11 is hereby rejected. 22. No other point has been urged by the learned counsel for the parties. 23. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is partly allowed thereby awarding the compensation of Rs.3,66,000/- in all together with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 5-5-1994 till the date of actual payment. In case any amount has been paid/deposited under no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the same shall be liable to be deducted out of the aforesaid award amount. It is further ordered that the aforesaid compensation of Rs,3,66,000/- will be shared by respondents No. 1 as under:- 1. Smt. Santosh Chadha (wife) Rs. 1,00,000/- 2. Kumari Suman Chadha (daughter) Rs. 16,000/- 3. Kumari Mcena Chadha (daughter) Rs. 50,000/- 4. Gulshan Chadha (son) Rs. 50,000/- 5. Kumari Sunita Chadha (daughter) Rs. 50,000/- 6. Rakesh Chadha (son) Rs. 50,000/- 7. Kumari Jyoti Chadha (daughter) Rs. 50,000/- Total Rs.3,66,000/- Claimants would also be entitled to interest on this amount, as foresaid. Cost on parties. -