JUDGMENT AND ORDER (Oral) This first appeal has been filed against the award dated 2.5.95 passed by the Member, MACT, Kamrup, Guwahati in MAC Case No. 1 of 1992 and the accident took place on 30.11.91 at about 1.45 PM at Kamakhya Gate. 2. A Mini Bus nocked down the Motor Cycle of one Kalicharan Duari, son of the claimant. The injured succumed to his injury on the same afternoon in the hospital and thereafter this claim case was filed clawing an amount of Rs.5.00 (five) lacs. The deceased was college student. The following witnesses were examined: (i) PW I, Dr. Dipak Chandra Das, who deposed regarding the age of the deceased. (ii) PW II, Sri Deepak Sarma, Trafic Control Police No. 196 standing at the spot. (iii) PW III Smti Chari Duari, the claimant. (iv) PW IV Nabin Haloi,ASI of Police. 3. On consideration of the materials on record, the Tribunal Came to the finding by utilising multiplier method of 15 that the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs,1,35,000/- and thereafter some other benefits were given and the total claim computed in favour of the claimant was Rs. 1,62,500/- and out of it 60% was deducted holding that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence and as such that amount should be deducted and having arrived that finding only an amount of Rs.65,000/- plus interest was granted as compensation. Hence this appeal. 4. I have heard Sri M. Singh, learned Advocate for the appellant and Sri RC Choudhury, learned Advocate for the respondent No.3. None appeared for the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 4. 5. The law is that the determination of the quantum of compensation must answer what contemporary society "would deem to be a fair sum such as would allow the wrongdoer 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. (1994) 2 SCC 176 (General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) & others). 6. 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. (1994) 2 SCC 176 (General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) & others). 6. A recent case on this point is (1996) 4 SCC 362 (UP State Road Transport Corporation & others vs. Trilok Chand & others) wherein the Supreme Court in paragraphs 15, 16, 17 and 18 laid down the law as follows : "15. We thought it necessary to reiterate the method of working out 'just' compensation because, of late, we have noticed from the awards made by Tribunals and Courts that the principle of which the multiplier method was developed has been lost sight of and once again a hybrid method based on the subjectivity of the Tribunal/Court has surfaced, introducing uncertainty and lack of reasonable uniformity in the matter of determination of compensation. It must be realised that the Tribunal/Court has to determine a fair amount of compensation awardable to the victim of an accident which must be proportionate to the injury caused. The two English decisions to which we have referred earlier provide the guidelines for assessing the loss occasioned to the victims. Under the formula advocated by Lord Wright in Davies, the loss has to be ascertained by first determining the monthly income of the deceased, then deducting therefrom the amount spent on the deceased, and thus assessing the loss to the dependants of the deceased. The annual dependency assessed in this manner is then to be multiplied by the use of an appropriate multiplier. Let us illustrate : X, male, aged about 35 years, dies in an accident. He leaves behind his widow and 3 minor children. His monthly income was Rs.3,500. First, deduct the amount spent on X every month. The rough and ready method hitherto adopted where no definite evidence was forthcoming, was to break up the family into units, taking two units for an adult and one unit for a minor. Thus X and his wife make 2+2=4 units and each minor one unit i.e. 3 units in all, totalling 7 units. Thus the share per unit works out to Rs.3,500 ¸ 7 = Rs.500 per month. It can thus be assumed that Rs. Thus X and his wife make 2+2=4 units and each minor one unit i.e. 3 units in all, totalling 7 units. Thus the share per unit works out to Rs.3,500 ¸ 7 = Rs.500 per month. It can thus be assumed that Rs. 1,000 was spent on X. Since he was a working member some provision for his transport and out of pocket expenses has to be estimated. In the present case we estimate the out-of-pocket expense at Rs.250. Thus the amount spent on the deceased X works out to Rs. 1,250 per month leaving a balance of Rs.3,500-1,250 = Rs.2,250 per month. This amount can be taken as the monthly loss to X's dependants. The annual dependency comes to Rs.2,250 x 12 = Rs.27,000. This annual dependency has to be multiplied by the use of an appropriate multiplier to assess the compensation under the head of loss to the dependants. Take the appropriate multiplier to be 15. The compensation comes to Rs.27,000 x 15=4,05,000. To this may be added a conventional amount by way of loss of expectation of life. Earlier this conventional amount was pegged down to Rs.3,000 but now having regard to the fall in the value of the rupee, it can be raised to a figure of not more than Rs. 10,000. Thus the total comes to Rs.4,05,000+10,000= Rs.4,15,000. 16. In the method adopted by Viscount Simon in the case of Nance also, first the annual dependency is worked out and then multiplied by the estimated useful life of the deceased. This is generally determined on the basis of longevity. But then, proper discounting on various factors having a bearing on the uncertainties of life, such as, premature death of the deceased or the dependant, remarriage, accelerated payment and increased earning by wise and prudent investments, etc would become necessary. It was generally felt that discounting on various imponderables made assessment of compensation rather complicated and cumbersome and very often as a rough and ready measure, one third to one-half of the dependency was reduced, depending on the life span taken. That is the reasons why Courts in India as well as England preferred the Davies formula as being simple and more realistic. However, as observed earlier and as pointed out in Susamma Thomas case, usually English Court rarely exceed 16 as the multiplier. That is the reasons why Courts in India as well as England preferred the Davies formula as being simple and more realistic. However, as observed earlier and as pointed out in Susamma Thomas case, usually English Court rarely exceed 16 as the multiplier. Courts in India too followed the same pattern till recently when Tribunals/Courts began to use a Hybrid method of using Nance method without making deduction for imponderables. 17. The situation has now undergone a change with the enactment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended by Amendment Act 54 of 1994. The most important change introduced by the amendment insofar as it relates to determination of compensation is the insertion of sections 163 A and 163B in Chapter XI entitled "Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third Party Risks." Section 165A begins with a non obstante clause and provides for payment of compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal representatives of the deceased or injured, as the case may be. Now if we turn to the Second Schedule, we-find a table fixing the mode of calculation of compensation for third party accident injury claims arising out of fatal accidents. The first column gives the age group of the victims of accident, the second column indicates the multiplier and the subsequent horizontal figures indicate the quantum of compensation in thousand payable to the heirs of the deceased victim. According to this table the multiplier varies from 5 to 18 depending on the age group to which the victim belonged. Thus, under this Schedule the maximum multiplier can be up to 18 and not 16 as was held in Susamma Thomas case. 18. We must at once point out that the calculation of compensation and the amount worked out in the Schedule suffer from several defects. For example, in Item I for a victim aged 15 years, the multiplier is shown to be 15 years and the multiplicand is shown to be Rs.3,000. The total should be 3,000x15=45,000 but the same is worked out at Rs.60,000. Similarly, in the second item the multiplier is 16 and the annual income is Rs.9,000; the total should have been Rs. 1,44,000 but is shown to be Rs. 1,71,000. To put it briefly, the table abounds in such mistakes. Neither the Tribunals not the Courts can go by the ready reckoner. It can only be used as a guide. Similarly, in the second item the multiplier is 16 and the annual income is Rs.9,000; the total should have been Rs. 1,44,000 but is shown to be Rs. 1,71,000. To put it briefly, the table abounds in such mistakes. Neither the Tribunals not the Courts can go by the ready reckoner. It can only be used as a guide. Besides, the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependant on the age of the deceased. For example, if the deceased, a bachelor, dies at the age of 45 and his dependants are his parents, age of the parents would also be relevant in the choice of the multiplier. But these mistakes are limited to actual calculations only and not in respect of other items. What we propose to emphasis is that the multiplier cannot exceed 18 years' purchase factor. This is the improvement over the earlier position that ordinarily it should not exceed 16. We thought it necessary to state the correct legal position as Courts and Tribunals are using higher multiplier as in the present case where the Tribunal used the multiplier of 24 which the High Court raised to 34, thereby showing lack of awareness of the background of the multiplier system in Davies case." 7. The Supreme Court in a judgment reported in AIR 1980 SC 1354 (NKV Bros (P) Ltd vs. M. Karumai Ammal & others) pointed out in paragraph 3 inter alia as follows : The Court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are emphasising this aspect because we are often distressed by transport operators getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of careful driving. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their 'neighbour'. Indeed, the State must seriously consider no fault liability by legislation. A second aspect which pains us is the inadequacy of the compensation or undue parcimoney practised by Tribunals. We must remember that judicial Tribunals are State organs and Article 41 of the Constitution lays the jurisprudential foundation for State relief against accidental disablement of citizens. There is no justification for niggardliness in compensation." 8. A second aspect which pains us is the inadequacy of the compensation or undue parcimoney practised by Tribunals. We must remember that judicial Tribunals are State organs and Article 41 of the Constitution lays the jurisprudential foundation for State relief against accidental disablement of citizens. There is no justification for niggardliness in compensation." 8. On the basis of the recent judgment reported in (1996) 4 SCC 362 (supra) the multiplier method used by the Tribunal is found to be incorrect. If the multiplier method of 18 is used the amount will come 1,62,000/-. If the amount of 25,000/- and 2,500/- added, the total amount comes to Rs. 1,89,500/- and I find this to be the just compensation for the death of son of the claimant. The Insurance Company shall pay the balance amount of this award passed today after deducting the amount already paid within a period of three months, from today. The amount shall be deposited before the Tribunal. 9. Regarding the enhancement of the award, I am not awarding any interest but if the amount is not deposited within a period of three months from today as prescribed above, this amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% PA from the date of filing the claim petition. 10. This disposes of the Misc Appeal (First).