Judgment :- Kanagaraj, J. 1. On 27. 1990 at about 5.00 p.m. the husband of the first respondent was proceeding on a two wheeler from east to west near the 16th sluice in the Mettur Dam, when the transport bus, belonging to the appellant corporation coming in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the two wheeler, resulting in his death on 27. 1990. At the time of the accident, the victim was working as clerk-cum-treasurer in Bharath State Bank at Mettur Branch. He was-earning a monthly salary of Rs. 1978. He was getting an incentive bonus of Rs. l600 per year. He had good chances of promotion. The second and third respondents are the minor children of the first respondent.. The bus was driven by the fourth respondent herein, who was the first respondent in the claim petition. Respondents 1 to 3 claimed a compensation of Rs.8 lakhs under sec. 166 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant corporation contested the claim petition on the ground that the bus driven by the fourth respondent was being driven carefully and slowly. The place of accident was a curved pathway and the bus had crossed 75 per cent of the sluice. The victim was driving the two wheeler in a high speed and dashed against the bus. The appellant corporation therefore denied liability and in any event questioned the quantum of compensation claimed by the respondents 1 to 3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,93,000 and directed the payment to all the three claimants in equal moieties. The Tribunal also directed the deposit of the amount payable to the minor claimants till they attain the age of majority, out of the amount payable to the first respondent. a sum of Rs. 75,000 was directed to be deposited for a period of three years. The Corporation, whose bus was involved in the accident has come up in appeal. .2. Learned counsel for the appellant attempted to argue that the accident was due the negligence of the husband of the first respondent. In support of this argument, learned counsel relied upon the fact that at the site of accident the road was curved and the bus had crossed 75 per cent of the curve. He also pointed out that the rough sketch, Ex. In support of this argument, learned counsel relied upon the fact that at the site of accident the road was curved and the bus had crossed 75 per cent of the curve. He also pointed out that the rough sketch, Ex. A2 was unreliable because it was not clear as to the exact place of accident. The Tribunal had rightly rejected the plan because there were two places indicated, as the place of accident. We have perused the evidence of the driver of the bus, DWl and PW2, who is an employee of Bharath State Bank and who was returning from the Mettur R. N.Telegraph office and who had actually seen the occurrence. According to him, the victim was proceeding in the two wheeler on the left hand-side slowly. The bus was coming rashly in the opposite direction and dashed, against the two wheeler. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of PW2 and rejected the contention that it is an interested testimony. The Tribunal also rejected the evidence of the driver of the bus for a good reason viz.. that he claimed to have given the first information report. Actually the first information report was given by one R.Govindan, Secondly, the Tribunal rightly points out that there were damages to the front portion of the bus and the same could not have happened, if the bus was coming slowly. We accept the reasoning of the Tribunal and hold that the accident had occurred only, because of the rash and negligent driving of the appellant’ s bus. 3. The next question relates to the quantum of compensation and it has to be decided on the basis of the well established principles enunciated by the various decisions of the Supreme Court. Before adverting to the evidence on record, we would like to refer to the decisions and lay down the various Rules prescribed by the Supreme Court for assessing the quantum of compensation in such cases. It is not necessary to quote the observations repeatedly from the relevant decisions because, the said observations in the said decisions have often been quoted and the passages are very familiar to Courts, dealing with Motor Accident cases. It is not necessary to quote the observations repeatedly from the relevant decisions because, the said observations in the said decisions have often been quoted and the passages are very familiar to Courts, dealing with Motor Accident cases. Even so, it is painful to see that many of the Tribunals have given scant respect to the principles laid down by the Apex Court and have been adopting unscientific methods based on conjunctures and giving compensation under unknown headings, being merely carried away by the plight of the claimants and the ghastly nature of the accident. We therefore, propose to refer to only those decisions of the Apex Court, which in our opinion are more than sufficient to cull out the principles of compensation. The earliest decisions for the purpose of asserting the principles is reported in Hardeo Kaur v. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation , 1992 (2) SCC 567 we are referring to this decision only to show that the principle adopted has been given a go-by the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court. In this case, the amount spent by the deceased on the family was found to be at Rs. 1,400 per month. The annual amount that the family was able to get was therefore arrived at as Rs. 16,800. This annual amount was multiplied by 24 to arrive at the damages. The figure was arrived at apparently on the basis of his age at the time of the accident, which was 36 and on the basis of the normal expectancy of life. The above basis of life expectancy is the traditional method of calculating the compensation. This principle has undergone several changes as will be seen from the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court, in General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C. v. Susamma Thomas , 1994 (2) SCC 176 the entire gamut of law was analysed and scientific method which could avoid arbitrariness and whimsical assessments, was evolved by the Apex Court. To start with the Apex Court reminded the Courts, dealing with the assessment of compensation, the maxim actio personalia moritur cum persona, which meant that all actions in tort extinguish with the death of the person. However, great changes were made by subsequent enactments, which give room for claim for Compensation. In a fatal accident, the accepted measure of damages is the pecuniary loss suffered by the dependants as a result of the death. However, great changes were made by subsequent enactments, which give room for claim for Compensation. In a fatal accident, the accepted measure of damages is the pecuniary loss suffered by the dependants as a result of the death. Reference is then made to two important English decisions viz., Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd , 1942 AC 601 : l942 (1) All ER 657 and Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Co., Ltd. 1951 AC 601 : 1951 (2) All ER 448 (PC). Reference is also made to the Halsbury’s Laws of England regarding the choice of the multiplicand, observed the Supreme Court as follows: “ The proper method of computation 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 Counts have justified a departure from the multiplier method on the ground that section 110B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 insofar as it envisages the compensation to be ‘just’, the statutory determination of a ‘just’ compensation -would .unshackle , the exercise from any rigid formula. It must be borne in mind that the multiplier method is 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...” As to what is the multiplier is explain in the. following passage: “ 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 claim ants 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... 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... “ Stopping here, we would like to extract the ratio of the decision. The main objective is to arrive at a capital sum. which, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. To put it in a simple manner, the annual loss to the dependents on account of the victim a death has to be ascertained first. The duty of the Court will be to find out the capital sum which would give the annual loss to the dependants by way of interest. It is for this purpose one has to find out the appropriate rate of interest in a stable economy. This is what is called in land acquisition cases the return which gilt edged securities would provide for a land owner when his land is acquired. The rate of interest can be easily ascertained from the Reserve Bank of India, To get the appropriate multiplier, one has to divide, 100 by the rate of interest. In other words, if 10 per cent is the proper interest in a stable economy, the multiplier will be 100/10=10. If the rate of interest is 12, the proper multiplier will be 100/12-8. 33. if 5 per cent is the rate of interest, the multiplier will be 100/5=20. This has been illustrated in the aforesaid Judgment of the Supreme Court in paragraph 17. The Apex Court also observes that the multiplier is determined by two factors, viz.. the rate of interest appropriate to, a stable, economy and the age of the deceased or of the. claimant whichever is higher. Regarding the determination of the multiplicand, the Apex Court observed that a liberal view of the prospects of the future earning capacity of the victim should also be taken into account. It is possible to take average income of the victim at the time of the accident and at the time of his natural date of Superannuation could be taken for arriving at the correct figure. This figure multiplied by 12 would give the annual loss of dependency, which is the multiplicand. It is possible to take average income of the victim at the time of the accident and at the time of his natural date of Superannuation could be taken for arriving at the correct figure. This figure multiplied by 12 would give the annual loss of dependency, which is the multiplicand. What all, one has to do, is to multiply the multiplicand by the multiplier chosen, to arrive at the compensation. Conventional compensation for loss of consortium and loss of estate could be added to the above figure, other fanciful claims under novel heads like the prospect of employment, after superannuation or the help the deceased would have rendered for the children’s education, marriage etc., do not enter in the calculation of annual loss of dependency. Only the immediate and proximate loss on account of the death of bread winner should be taken into consideration, before arriving at the multiplicand. The above Judgment in Susamma’s case, 1994 (2) SCC 176 is the sheet anchor for the de termination of compensation in all cases of death of the victim. 4. Some fine tuning has been made by the Judgment of the Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corpn v. Trilok Chandra , 1996 (4) SCC 362 . This Judgment was rendered on 5. 1996. Similarly, Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav , AIR 1996 SC 1274 has also added to the principles enunciated in General Manager Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas’s case , 1994 (2) SCC 176 we will first refer to the Judgment in Sarla Dixit’s case, AIR 1996 SC 1274 dated 22. 1996. In this case, the deceased was earning a gross salary of Rs. 1543 at the time of the accident. The Apex Court takes into consideration all the hazards of life as well the promotion chances and holds that the monthly income would have shot upto Rs. 3000 at the time of his superannuation. The Apex Court arrived at the average gross monthly income spread over his entire career, had it been availa ble as Rs. 4500 divided by 2 i.e. Rs. 2250. out of this monthly income 1/3rd should be deducted by way of personal expenses and other liabilities like payment of income tax etc. Thus the average gross loss of dependency was arrived at by deducting about Rs. 750 from the said Rs. 2250. The final multiplicand was arrived at Rs. 1450. 4500 divided by 2 i.e. Rs. 2250. out of this monthly income 1/3rd should be deducted by way of personal expenses and other liabilities like payment of income tax etc. Thus the average gross loss of dependency was arrived at by deducting about Rs. 750 from the said Rs. 2250. The final multiplicand was arrived at Rs. 1450. The annual loss of dependency was arrived at Rs. 18000 which the Apex Court calls as the datum figure. Having regard to the age of the deceased which was 27 the proper multiplier was adopted as 15. The compensation was worked out as Rs, 18,000x15 = 2,70,000. The conventional figure of Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate and consortium are added. The total compensation was fixed at Rs. 85. 000 The above decision of the Supreme Court gives a fair and easy method, of .assessment of compensation. 5. The last decision to be noticed as U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra , 1996 (4) SCC 362 . One has to carefully read the entire Judgment to find out whether this Judgment has taken a different view whether this from the view taken in Susamma Thomas case, 1994 (2) SCC 176 . After careful analysis, we find that the view taken in Susamma Thomas case, 1994 (2) SCC 176 has been approved except for the alteration at the multiplier could go upto 18 and not 16 as stated in Susamma Thomas case, 1994 (2) SCC 176 . But one interesting feature of this Judgment of-the Apex Court is that a new formula is advocated for finding-out the multiplicand. It is best to quote the Judgment giving an illustration as to the proper method of calculating the multiplicand: “ Let us illustrate : X male, aged about 35 years, dies in-an accident. He leaves behind his widow and three minor children. His monthly income was Rs. 3500. First, deduct the amount spent on X every month. The rough and ready method hither to 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 sh are per unit works out to .Rs. 3500 divided by 7 = 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 sh are per unit works out to .Rs. 3500 divided by 7 = Rs. 500 per month. It can thus be assumed that Rs, l000 ,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.1250 per month leaving a balance of Rs.3500-1250 = Rs 2250 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. 27000. 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 dependents. Take the appropriate multiplier to be Rs. 15. The compensation comes to Rs. 27000 x 15 Rs. 405000. To this may be added a conventional amount by way of loss of expectation of life. Earlier this conventional amount was pagged down to Rs. 300 A 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. l0000. Thus, the total comes to Rs. 405000 + l0000 =Rs. 415000. 6. The Supreme Court in this case has also referred to the schedule added to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Amendment Act 54 of 1994. The Apex Court points out that there are certain discrepancies in the Schedule and that it could be taken only as a guideline. 7. Thus, we have before us all the essential Rules for finding out the correct compensation in the case of a fatal accident. We-will now refer to the facts of the case. The victim in this case was earning a monthly salary of Rs.1978. He was aged about 37 years, as could be seen from the post-mortem certificate Ex,P3. But, as per the SSLC book, Ex.P9, the date of birth is given as 8. 1957, meaning that the victim was aged about 33 years at the time of the accident. The victim in this case was earning a monthly salary of Rs.1978. He was aged about 37 years, as could be seen from the post-mortem certificate Ex,P3. But, as per the SSLC book, Ex.P9, the date of birth is given as 8. 1957, meaning that the victim was aged about 33 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal rightly accepts 33 as the correct age of the victim on the date of the accident. The second witness, has deposed that if the victim could pass certain qualifying examinations, he could have been promoted, in which case, his monthly earnings could rise to Rs.7000 per month. Ex. P7 proves the salary of the victim as Rs. 1978.86p. He was getting an incentive bonus of Rs. 1,600 per annum, on the above evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the victim would have given a contribution of Rs. 1,500 per month. He arrived at the life expectancy as 25 and proceed to fix a compensation of Rs.4,50,000. He also proceeded to say that the victim would have given Rs. 1000 out of the incentive bonus per year and the same was multiplied by 25 to give an additional compensation of Rs. 25,000. He awarded Rs. 18,000 for loss of consortium and by way of love and affection. 8. We are of the opinion that having regard to the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court the above method of calculation is incorrect and defective. We therefore propose to apply, the ratio of the judgments of the Supreme Court. but adopt the evidence accepted by the trial Court. Though the monthly salary of the victim at the time of the accident was Rs. 1978, having regard to the chance of promotion and having regard to the annual incentive bonus of Rs. 1600 per year, we are of the opinion that the a verage monthly income of the victim can be fixed as Rs. 3500. We now come to the question of deducting an appropriate amount for the personal expenses of the deceased during his life time. In the earlier decisions. one third of the said amount was usually deducted. A more scientific method has been provided by the Apex Court in Trilok Chandra’s Case, 1996 (4) SCC 362 . 3500. We now come to the question of deducting an appropriate amount for the personal expenses of the deceased during his life time. In the earlier decisions. one third of the said amount was usually deducted. A more scientific method has been provided by the Apex Court in Trilok Chandra’s Case, 1996 (4) SCC 362 . Applying this method, we find that in this case, we have the deceased, his wife (Rl) and his two minor children viz., R2 and R3. The unit s are 2+ 2+1+1 = 6. Therefore, the contribution to the dependants for every month is Rs. 3500-X 4/6 = Rs. 2333 or Rs. 2355. The annual loss of dependency is therefore Rs. 28.020 or approximately Rs. 28000. 9. Our next task is to find out the correct multiplier. The rule enunciated in Susamma Thomas case, 1994 (2) SCC 176 is to get that capital sum. which if invested could get an annual interest of Rs. 28000. We can safely take 10 as the reasonable rate of interest that can be obtained from the deposits in the State Bank of India on the date of the petition namely 190. Therefore 100/10=10 will be the multiplier. However, having regard to the age of the deceased, which is proved by documents as 33 on the date of the accident we are inclined to fix 12 as the multiplier. In this regard we also take into account the guidelines set out in the 2nd schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 28000 x 12 we get a figure of Rs. 3,36.000 as the compensation payable to the dependants claimants. Accepting the figure of Rs. 18000 for loss of consortium, love and affection and mental agony as fixed by the lower Court, we arrive at the total compensation of Rs. 3,54,000 (Rupees Three Lakhs and Fifty Four Thousand Only) as the compensation payable to respondents 1 to 3. The rate of interest on the said sum will run at 12 per cent per annum from the date of the petition. The award of the Tribunal is modified by substituting the figure Rs. 3,54.000 instead of the figure of Rs.4,93,000. In all other respects, the aware is confirmed. 10. The Appeal is allowed to the above extent. However, there will be no order as to costs.