Judgment :- SRINIVASAN, J. 1. This appeal is by the Transport Corporation against the award of Rs. 6,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants. 2. The claim is made by the wife, children and parents of the deceased. The accident occurred on 29.1.1990 at about 7 pm when the deceased was going in a cycle sitting in the pillion from Spencer tower to Thyagaraya Nagar from north to south near Anna Salai, Thousand lights market. The bus bearing Registration No. TCB. 4974 owned by the appellant came from behind in the same direction and hit the cycle. The bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The deceased fell on the right side of the cycle and the bus ran over his head killing him on the spot. The case of the appellant was that the bus was being driven in a proper manner in accordance with the rules and the cyclist dashed against the bus while if was passing ahead of him. According to the appellant, the driver of the bus was in no way responsible for the accident as he was driving the bus slowly and cautiously. 3. The Tribunal after considering the evidence, held that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/-in favour of the claimants. 4. On the question of negligence, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence on record does not prove the rash and negligent driving of the bus. We are unable to accept this contention. When we peruse the evidence we find that the claimants have proved beyond doubt that the bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner. Though the driver of the bus has given evidence denying the allegations of the claimants, we are unable to accept the said evidence. The tribunal has rightly disbelieved the evidence of the tribunal. In fact, in cross examination, the driver has deposed that he had not seen the cycle before the accident occurred. But, in the counter statement, it is stated that the cyclist fell down because he lost the balance when the bus was going near the cycle. The tribunal has found that the cyclist was going very near the platform on the left side and the bus had dashed against the cycle at that stage. But, in the counter statement, it is stated that the cyclist fell down because he lost the balance when the bus was going near the cycle. The tribunal has found that the cyclist was going very near the platform on the left side and the bus had dashed against the cycle at that stage. Even the sketch of the place of accident marked as Ex. P-5 proves that the accident could not have occurred but for the rash and negligent driving of the bus. We have no hesitation to accept the evidence adduced on the side of the claimants and confirm the finding of the tribunal. 4. It is seen that the deceased was aged about 34. According to the first claimant, the deceased was earning about Rs. 4,000/- and odd and he was handing over a sum of Rs. 2,000/- every month to her to run the family. The Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 24 and arrived at the figure of Rs. 5,76,000/-. The Tribunal has stated that no amount can be deducted from Rs. 2,000/-, as the said sum was being paid to the wife by the husband only after deducting his own expenses. The Tribunal proceeded to award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the first claimant for loss of consortium and Rs. 5,000/-each to claimants 2 and 3, minor children, for loss of love and affection and a sum of Rs. 4,000/- to the 4th claimant, father of the deceased for loss of love and affection. The Tribunal has apportioned the total amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- by awarding Rs. 2,00,000/- to the first claimant, Rs. 1,75,000/- to each of the minor children and Rs. 50,000/- to the 4th claimant. The chaimants have not preferred any appeal to this court. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the total compensation awarded is highly disproportionate to the amount earned by the deceased and lost by the family. It is submitted that the deceased was earning only Rs. 2,000/- and if compensation of Rs. 5,76,000/- is awarded to the claimants, the monthly interest will be much more than Rs. 4,000/- and that gives a huge profit to the claimants, which is not contemplated under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. There is same force in this contention. It is submitted that the deceased was earning only Rs. 2,000/- and if compensation of Rs. 5,76,000/- is awarded to the claimants, the monthly interest will be much more than Rs. 4,000/- and that gives a huge profit to the claimants, which is not contemplated under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. There is same force in this contention. Though the deceased was aged only 34 years and he would have earned for another 24 years, the court has to fix the multiplier by capitalising the income lost by the claimants. 6. The Supreme Court has laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swarnalata Das (1993 (2) ACJ. 748) that the appropriate method of assessment of compensation is the method of capitalising the net income choosing a multiplier appropriate to the age of the deceased or the age of the dependents which ever multiplier is lower. 7. In General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susemma Thomas and others (1994 (1) ACJ. 1) the court said: “It is necessary to reiterate that the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well-established. There are some cases which have proceeded to determine the compensation on the basis of aggregating the entire future earnings for over the period the life expectancy was lost, deducted a percentage therefrom towards uncertainties of future life and awarded the resulting sum as compensation. This is clearly unscientific. For instance, if the deceased was, say, 25 years of age at the time of death an d the life expectancy is 70 years, this method would multiply the loss of dependen for 45 years, virtually adopting a multiplier of 45 and even if one - third or one - fourth is deducted therefrom towards the uncertainities of future life and for immediate lump sum payment, the effective multiplier would be between 30 and 34. This is wholly impermissible. We are aware that some decisions of the High Courts and of this court as well have arrived at compensation on some such basis. These decisions cannot be said to have laid down a settled principle. They are merely instances of particular awards in individual cases. The proper method of calculation is the multiplier method. Any departure, except in exceptional and extraordinary cases, would introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of uniformity and an element of unpredictability for the assessment of compensation. These decisions cannot be said to have laid down a settled principle. They are merely instances of particular awards in individual cases. The proper method of calculation is the multiplier method. Any departure, except in exceptional and extraordinary cases, would introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of uniformity and an element of unpredictability for the assessment of compensation. Some Judgments of the High Courts have justified a departure from the multiplier method on the ground that section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, in so far as it envisages the compensation to be just the statutory determination of just compensation would unshackle the exercise from any rigid formula. It must be borne in mind that the multiplier method is the accepted method of ensuring a just compensation which will make for uniformity and certainty of the awards. We disapprove these decisions of the High courts which have taken a contrary view, we indicate 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”. “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 interesr will take care of the dependency perpetually, the multiplier in this case works out to 10. If the rate of interest is 5 percent 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. Then allowance to scale down the multiplier would have to be made taking into account the uncertain “I ties of the future, the allowance for immediate lump sum payment, the period over which the dependency is to last being shorter and the capital fee also to be spent away over the period of dependency is to last etc. usually nin 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”. 8. usually nin 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”. 8. Applying the principles set out by the Supreme Court in the above cases to the facts in this case, we find that the appropriate multiplier will be 18. Consequently, instead of adopting the multiplier of 24, we adopt the multiplier of 18 and the total amount under the head loss of dependency will come to Rs. 4,32,000/. We are not inclined to disturb the award of compensation made by the Tribunal on the ground of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The total amount awarded under these heads comes to Rs. 24,000/-. Thus, the total compensation would be Rs. 4,56,000/- payable to the claimants. 9. The appeal is allowed in part and the appellant is directed to pay a total compensation of Rs. 4,56,000/- (Rupees four lakhs and fifty six thousand) with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the original petition. The order of costs passed by the Tribunal is confimed. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal. 10. The Tribunal has directed deposit of the compensation amount awarded to the first claimant in fixed deposit. We are of he opinion that there is no need for deposit of the amount in fixed deposti in the case of the first claimant, as she is literate and she is employed already. Hence, the entire amount due to the first claimant can be paid out to her immediately. As regards claimants 2 and 3, the amount due to them shall be deposited in fixed deposit in a Nationalised Bank till they attain majority. The interest accruing thereon shall be paid once in three months to their guardian and mother, namely, Vanithamani, first claimant directly by the Bank. As regards the 4th claimant the amount awarded to him shall be paid out to him immediately by the Bank. The balance amount in excess of what is awarded herein shall be refunded to the appellant-Corporation.