Judgment :- Abdul Hadi, J. Respondents 1 to 4 in R.C.O.P. No.421 of 1984 on the file of the Motor Accidents . Claims Tribunal (IV Additional Subordinate Judge), Madurai, have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the compensation of Rs.3,50,160 (with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till realisation), awarded by the said tribunal (in respect of the death of Thirunavukarasu in the motor accident that took place on 3. 1984, in favour of the respondents herein, who are widow, child, father and mother of the said deceased. The accident took place due to the collision between the bus, whose owner is the 1st appellant and a lorry, whose owner is the 2nd appellant. The other appellants are the respective insurance companies. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants restricted his argument only to the quantum of compensation awarded. No doubt, as against this appeal, the above said claimants-respondents have preferred cross-objection claim Rs.2,49,840, additional compensation of (which has been disallowed by the tribunal below). 3. The age of the deceased at the time of his death was taken to be 30 years by the tribunal below in computing the above said compensation. When he died, the 1st respondent widow was aged 22 years and his minor child the 2nd respondent was 1 1/2 years. The deceased, on the date of the accident was working in Tiruchendur Spinning Mills. He was then earning Rs. 1,310 per month as per Exs.P-1 and P-2 the salary certificates. Taking these into account, the Tribunal below, adopting the multiplier method and fixing the multiplier at 28, arrived at the figure of Rs.4,40,160 and from it, deducted, on the ground of lump sum payment and of provision for his own personal expenses, a sum of Rs. 1,20,000 and arrived at the figure of Rs.3,20,160. Then, adding Rs.30,000 as consortium for the widow, arrived at the above said compensation of Rs.3,50,160. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants only argues that the multiplier adopted, viz,, 28 is too high and it cannot before than 16. In this regard, the relies on General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 A.C.J. 1 (S.C.). Then, adding Rs.30,000 as consortium for the widow, arrived at the above said compensation of Rs.3,50,160. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants only argues that the multiplier adopted, viz,, 28 is too high and it cannot before than 16. In this regard, the relies on General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 A.C.J. 1 (S.C.). There, when the claimants, who are parents, widow and children, claimed compensation on the death of the deceased, who was aged 38 years and who was earning as per the finding of the High Court a sum of Rs. 1,032 per month, the High court granted Rs.2,64,000 as compensation. But the Supreme Court reduced it to Rs.2,25,000 even though it fixed the above said monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,000 and after deducting one third thereof, calculated the compensation, taking into account the above said monthly income at Rs. 1,400 per month. It adopted the multiplier of 12 and adding the consortium figure, it arrived at the total compensation awardable at the above said Rs.2,25,000. In the above context, the relevant observations of the Supreme court are as follows: "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 of 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 and the life expectancy is 70 years, this method would multiply the loss of dependency for 45 years virtually adopting a multiplier of 45 and even if one third or one fourth is deducted therefrom towards the uncertainties of future life and for immediate lump sum payment, the effective multiplier would be between 30 and 34. This is wholly impermissible.......The proper method of computation is the multiplier method.... 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 Rs. 1,00,000 is invested at 10 per cent annual interest, the interest will take care of the dependency perpetually. The multiplier in this case works out to 10. 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 Rs. 1,00,000 is invested at 10 per cent annual interest, the interest will take care of the dependency perpetually. The multiplier in this case works out to 10. If the rate of interest is 5 per cent 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 uncertainties of the future, the allowance for immediate lump sum payment, the period over which the dependency is to last being shorter and the capital feed also to be spent away over the period of dependency is to last, etc. Usually in 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." 5. Learned counsel for the appellants very much relies on the above referred to passages of the Supreme Court to contend that the multiplier adopted in the present case is very high. But, it must be noted that in the present case, the above said deduction of Rs. 1,20,000 has been made from the above said figure of Rs.4,40,160 while adopting the multiplier of 28. As per the said judgment of the Supreme Court, this method adopted by the tribunal below is "unscientific" and as per the strict principle of multiplier method no deduction need be made if a correct multiplier is adopted. 1,20,000 has been made from the above said figure of Rs.4,40,160 while adopting the multiplier of 28. As per the said judgment of the Supreme Court, this method adopted by the tribunal below is "unscientific" and as per the strict principle of multiplier method no deduction need be made if a correct multiplier is adopted. A Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (Abdul Hadi, J.) was a party, in K. Pushpam and others v. Anna Transport Corporation, (1991) 1 L.W. 555 also held thus: "So far as the next contention of the learned counsel regarding the multiplier being fixed at 15 years, we think that the said figure would have been fairly reasonable, provided no reduction was made from it on ground of uncertainty in life and the lump sum payment, In State of Tamil Nadu v. M.N. Shamsudeen, a Division Bench of this Court held that it is only when the pecuniary loss is determined on the basis of longevity of the deceased that any deduction is possible for lump sum payment and not when compensation was assessed by adopting years’ purchase method (multiplier method). The reason is that the multiplier is fixed not for the entire span of life, but only for a reasonable period." (emphasis supplied) In the above Supreme Court case also, no deduction was made after adopting the multiplier of 12. 6. No doubt, in the present case, the multiplier adopted was 28. But, it must be noted that the Tribunal below has not taken into account the promotional prospects of the deceased employee and the consequent probable increase in his monthly earnings. Further, no doubt in this regard, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the employer of the deceased was not examined to speak about any such promotional opportunity of the deceased- employee. But, a representative of the employer has been examined in this case as P.W.3. Further, even before going to the evidence of P.W.3, we may point out the evidence given by P.W.I (widow of the deceased) also. The relevant evidence of P.W. 1, on which there is no cross-examination is that the deceased was working in the above said mills as statistical quality control assistant at the time of the accident and that he was then a B.Sc. (Statistics) graduate and a holder of Diploma in Textiles. The relevant evidence of P.W. 1, on which there is no cross-examination is that the deceased was working in the above said mills as statistical quality control assistant at the time of the accident and that he was then a B.Sc. (Statistics) graduate and a holder of Diploma in Textiles. Therefore, particularly in the light of the fact that there was no cross-examination on this deposition given by P.W.1, it could be safely inferred that the promotional prospects of the deceased employee was bright in view of his educational qualification and his designation at the time of his death. Now, coming to P.W.3’s evidence, he deposed in chief-examination thus: 7. Further, we must also state that it cannot be concluded that he would be getting earnings only upto the age of 58. Even assuming that he might have to retire at the age of 58, it can be said, taking into account the normal life expectancy of even 65 to 70 years, that he could earn something decent, though not very much, even after the age of 58, particularly taking into account his educational qualification and the experience he would have gained in working in the above said spinning mill, as stated above. 8. Further, the tribunal below has only granted 9 per cent interest, which also seems to be low. Further, note also has to be taken of the fall in the purchasing power of money. 9. Taking all these into account, it cannot be said that the ultimate amount of compensation arrived at by the tribunal below requires any modification in this appellant forum. No doubt, learned counsel for the appellants also argues that the consortium of Rs.30,000 granted also is high and it should be only Rs.10,000. But, it must be noted that even in the above referred to Supreme Court case, the consortium awarded was Rs.15,000. Taking an overall view, we do not think that the compensation a awarded requires any modification. That apart, it is well settled that the appellate court, while assessing the quantum of damages, would only interfere where the amount awards is too low or too high or as it is often said, outside the brackets, because the estimate made in the award by the lower court would often vary and some bracket has always to be kept in mind. (Vide also Hirji Virji Transport v. Basiran Bibi, 1971 A.C.J. 458 (Guj.). (Vide also Hirji Virji Transport v. Basiran Bibi, 1971 A.C.J. 458 (Guj.). 10. It is needless to say that despite the argument of learned counsel for the respondents, there is no case for any increase of the above said compensation as claimed in the cross-objection. On this evidence also, there is no cross-examination. 11.. Accordingly, both the appeal and the cross objection are dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no orders as to costs.