Honble JAIN, J. – Since these two appeals arise out of an accident involving Roadways Bus No. RNP 1514 and Truck No. RJE 5305, I propose to decide them together by a common Judgment. (2). The brief facts leading to this appeal are that Basir Khan was driving Truck No. RJE 5305 and deceased Hanumanaram was its cleaner. It is alleged that on the night intervening 3.5.1988 and 4.5.1988, Basir Khan was proceeding with the Truck having loaded with stone slabs from Jodhpur to Soneli and when he reached near village Soyala, he saw the above roadways bus coming with a very high speed towards his Truck and, in order to save his vehicle from the possible accident, he took the Truck on the Kutchha road on left side of the road. It is further alleged that a camel was standing in front of his Truck. Shafi Mohd. was driving the roadways bus rashly and negligently inasmuch as after hitting the camel, the roadways bus violently dashed against the Truck No. RJE 5305, as a result of that, the Truck was badly damaged. Hanumanaram was fatally injured and died on the spot. Bashir Khan also sustained several injuries including fracture of the right leg and collar bone. (3). A first information report of this accident was lodged at Police Station, Khedapa on 4.5.1988 by Ramkishan and on the basis of that report, the police regis- tered a case u/ss. 279,337 and 338 IPC and after usual investigation, a challan was filed against Shafi Mohd. (4). During the investigation of the above case, the site was inspected and site plan and site inspection memo were prepared on 4.5.1988. In the site inspection memo, the Investigating Officer has stated that the roadways bus was going from the side of Nagaur and it collided with the truck and thereafter, the bus driver took the vehicle towards the right side of the road. It was also stated that the truck was badly damaged. The injuries sustained by Bashir Khan were got examined by the Medical Officer and the Medical Officer found a fracture on his right leg as also a fracture of his clavicle bone. (5). It was also stated that the truck was badly damaged. The injuries sustained by Bashir Khan were got examined by the Medical Officer and the Medical Officer found a fracture on his right leg as also a fracture of his clavicle bone. (5). Two different claim petitions were filed : one by Bashir Khan, injured driver of the truck and the other by the parents of deceased Hanumanaram, cleaner of the Truck in the Court of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur. (6). In Claim Petition No. 120 of 1992, Bashir Khan after narrating the manner in which the truck was dashed negligently by the roadways bus driver Shafi Mohd. has claimed compensation of a sum of Rs. 2,86,400/-. He has submitted that on account of the above two fractures, he took treatment for 6 months and despite treatment, he could not recover fully and his right leg was shortened by one and quarter inch. Not only this, on account of the fracture of his clavicle bone, the mobility of his right hand was substantially diminished. He has further stated that he was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 1,000/- per month and in addition to the above, he was also getting a sum of Rs. 30/- as daily allowance. On account of his treatment, he was prevented for 6 months from doing any job. (7). In other Claim Petition No. 121 of 1992, the parents of Hanumanaram have stated that Hanumanaram died on account of the rash and negligent driving of the roadways bus by Shafi Mohd. and at the time of his death, he was only 22 years of age and his monthly salary was Rs. 700/- per month. He was also getting a sum of Rs. 10/- as daily allowance. Thus, the parents of deceased Hanumanaram made a claim of Rs. 2,00,000/-. (8). Both the claim petitions were resisted by Shafi Mohd. as well as the appe- llant RSRTC on the ground that the above accident was not caused by rash and negligent driving of the roadways bus by Shafi Mohd. According to them, the accident occurred on account of the fact that Bashir Khan was driving his truck rashly and negligently and first his Truck hit the camel and then collided with the roadways bus. Thus, according to them, the above accident was attributable solely to the rash and negligent act of Bashir Khan. According to them, the accident occurred on account of the fact that Bashir Khan was driving his truck rashly and negligently and first his Truck hit the camel and then collided with the roadways bus. Thus, according to them, the above accident was attributable solely to the rash and negligent act of Bashir Khan. Alternatively, it was pleaded that at least the Truck Driver Bashir Khan was guilty of contributory negligence. The quantum of damages was also challenged as unjust, exhoribitant and improper. (9). On the pleadings of the parties 7 issues were framed in both the claim petitions. Issue No. 1 was with regard to the rash and negligent act of the bus driver Shafi Mohd. Under this issue, the learned Tribunal examined the testimony of the witnesses produced by the claimants as also non-claimants and after appreciating the testimony of the witnesses on record as also the site inspection report, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the above accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent act of the bus driver Shafi Mohd., who drove the roadways bus at a very high speed which could not be controlled even after it dashed against a camel. After hitting the camel, the bus collided with the Truck which was on the left side much away from the road and proceeding dead slow. Issue No. 1 was, therefore, decided in favour of the claimants. (10). The learned Tribunal further held the claim petitions submitted by the claimants are sustainable. He, therefore, by the impugned Award dated 4.11.1992 awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- in each claim petition jointly and severally against driver Shafi Mohd. and the appellant RSRTC. (11). Aggrieved by the impugned Award dated 4.11.1992, the appellant RSRTC has preferred these two appeals. (12). I have heard Mr. B.S. Bhati for the appellant and Mr. U.C.S. Singhvi for the Insurance Company and have carefully gone through the record of the case. (13). It has been contended by Mr. Bhati, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the decision on Issue No. 1 by the learned Tribunal in each of the claim petitons is erroneous and is not based on proper and rational appreciation of evidence. He has submitted that the driver of the roadways bus Shafi Mohd. was not negligent. (13). It has been contended by Mr. Bhati, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the decision on Issue No. 1 by the learned Tribunal in each of the claim petitons is erroneous and is not based on proper and rational appreciation of evidence. He has submitted that the driver of the roadways bus Shafi Mohd. was not negligent. The accident occurred because the truck Driver first hit the camel and as a result of this collusion, he lost the control of the vehicle and collided with the roadways bus. (14). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has supported the finding of the learned Tribunal. (15). I have gone through the reasons given by the learned Tribunal while deciding Issue No. 1. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the evidence of the witnesses. On page 7 of the impugned Judgement, the learned Tri- bunal has relied on the testimony of Bashir Khan and Ramkishan and according to them, the driver of the bus drove the bus at a very high speed and hence, the element of rash and negligent act can definitely be attributed to the driver of the Bus. There was no rebuttal evidence. I therefore, hold that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in deciding Issue No. 1 against the appellant. (16). Regarding the compensation, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Tribunal has determined the compensation without following the settled principles which normally regulate the determination of compensation in such cases. The Apex Court has consistently approved the theory of multiplier and has now elaborated the theory of multiplier. In the instant case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a consolidated sum as damages without invoking the theory of multiplier and without ascertaining the actual loss as a result of the death of Hanumanaram. Similarly, the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the percentage of disability or actual loss caused on account of the disability incurred by Bashir Khan. (17). On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the company has supported the impugned Award of the learned Tribunal. (18). Now, after a series of judgments rendered by the Apex Court of the country, it is not in doubt that the best way to determine the compensation in Motor Accidents Claims Cases is the theory of multiplier. (17). On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the company has supported the impugned Award of the learned Tribunal. (18). Now, after a series of judgments rendered by the Apex Court of the country, it is not in doubt that the best way to determine the compensation in Motor Accidents Claims Cases is the theory of multiplier. The Apex Court has approved this theory and has also given guidelines for applying the exact or appropriate multiplier in a particular case so that on account of the death of the bread-earner of a family, the dependents may not suffer financially and at the same time, the determination of compensation may not amount to enriching the dependents. (19). In this connection, I may refer to the latest decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. vs. Trilok Chand & Ors. (1), wherein it has been observed as under :– ``For concluding the analysis, it is necessary now to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport, Trivendrum vs. Susamma Thomas, 1994 (2) SCC 176 . In that case, this Court culled out the basic principles governing the assessment of compensation emerging from the legal authorities cited above and reiterated that the multiplier method is the sound method of assessing compensation. The Court observed :– ``The multiplier 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. The principle was explained and illustrated by a mathematical example :– 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/-. The principle was explained and illustrated by a mathematical example :– 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% 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 annum and not 10% 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 allowances for immediate lump sum payment, the period over which the dependency is to last being shorter and the capital feed also to be spend 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 dependents, whichever is higher) goes up. In the cases on hand, the Claim Petition No. 121 of 1992 has been filed on behalf of the parents of deceased Hanumanaram. These are two dependants. It is not in dispute that Hanumanaram was not married and was aged about 22 years and was earning a sum of Rs. 700/- per month + Rs. 10/- as daily allowance. Thus, his annual income comes to Rs. 8,400/- as salary, + Rs. 3,650/- as daily allowance the total of which comes to Rs. 12,050/- and by applying the above theory of multiplier, normally 1/5th of the annual income is required to be deducted out of the annual income of the deceased as his personal expenses. Thus, by deducting 1/5th amount of his annual income of Rs. 12,050/-, the net dependency comes to Rs. 9,640/-. Looking to the age of the parents of the deceased, I deem it just and proper to apply the multiplier of 15 for determining the compensation to be granted to the parents of deceased Hanumanaram for the loss of their son. Hence, by multi- plying 15 to Rs. 12,050/-, the net dependency comes to Rs. 9,640/-. Looking to the age of the parents of the deceased, I deem it just and proper to apply the multiplier of 15 for determining the compensation to be granted to the parents of deceased Hanumanaram for the loss of their son. Hence, by multi- plying 15 to Rs. 9,640/-, the compensation to be awarded to the parents of deceased Hanumanaram comes to Rs. 1,44,600/-. I, therefore, determine the amount of compensation to be awarded to the parents of deceased Hanumanaram at Rs, 1,44,600/-. (20). In claim Petition No. 120 of 1992, the claimant Bashir Khan was injured in the accident and he received two fractures one on his right leg and the other on his clavicle bone. As a result of the fracture on his right leg, his right leg was shortened by one and quarter Inch and even the strength of his leg was also reduced substantially. On account of fracture of his clavicle bone, the mobility of his hand was substantively diminished. Further on account of this accident, he was prevented from attending to his job for about 6 months and he had to spend a huge amount on his treatment. He also faced mental agony and harassment. Taking all these factors into consideration, I assess the consolidated compensation to be awarded to the claimant Bashir Khan at Rs. 85,000/- as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (21). In both these claim petitions, the order regarding award of interest at the rate of 12% from the date of claim petition till realisation of the amount of compensation is maintained. (22). In the result, I allow these appeals in part and modify the impugned Award dated 4.11.1992 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur) to this extent that in claim petition No. 120 of 1992, the parents of deceased Hanumanaram shall be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 1,44,600/- and in the claim petition No. 120 of 1992, theclaimant Bashir Khan will be entitled to a consolidated compensation of Rs. 85,000/- only. It is further ordered that the claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of their claim petition till the realisation of the compensation amount. (23). 1,44,600/- and in the claim petition No. 120 of 1992, theclaimant Bashir Khan will be entitled to a consolidated compensation of Rs. 85,000/- only. It is further ordered that the claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of their claim petition till the realisation of the compensation amount. (23). It is further ordered, that in Claim Petition No. 121 of 1992, the parents of deceased Hanumanaram will get only a sum of Rs. 44,600/- in cash and the remai- ning amount of compensation be got invested in Fixed Deposit Account in his name in a scheduled Bank for a period of five years. The parents of deceased Hanumanaram shall not be entitled to claim premature encashment of the amount of aforesaid Fixed Deposits unless allowed by the learned Tribunal. In Claim Petition No. 120 of 1992, the entire amount of compensation be paid to the claimant Bashir Khan. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs of these appeals. _