JUDGMENT R.D. Shukla, J. 1. This order shall also dispose of cross-objection filed by claimant-respondents. 2. Appeal is directed against the Award dated 23.6.1993 of the M.A.C.T. Mandsaur, passed in M.A.C.T. Case No. 68/1992, whereby claimant-respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 have been awarded compensation of Rs. 5,10,000/- with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of filing claim-petition i.e. 22.7.1992 till realisation of the same. 3. The case of claimant-respondents No. 2, 3 & 4 is that Ravi Choudhary, husband of claimant No. 1, father of claimant No. 2 and son of claimant No. 3 was coming on his scooter from Ratlam. C.W. 3 Shyamkumar was the pillion rider. They came near Bhaygarh crossing. Tractor No. CTU 8549 with trolley No. M.K.U. 6962 attached to it came from opposite direction. It was driven by Shankarlal, driver and servant of Komalram (appellant No. 1). Jt. suddenly took turn and dashed against the scooter. The scooter driver and pillion rider were thrown. Ravi Choudhary sustained grievous injuries. Both of them were shifted to Mandsaur Hospital. Ravi Choudhary died the same day. 4. There is no dispute that the tractor was 'insured with Oriental Insurance Co. (Appellant No. 2 here). 5. Heirs of Ravi Choudhary who have been shown as respondents No. 2,3 and 4 have claimed compensation on different headings which are as follows: 1. Ravi Choudhary was earning Rs. 8000/- per month and was spending Rs. 6000/- to 7000/- per month on his family and was aged about 28 years. Claimed Rs. 15,00,000/- 2. Expenses of treatment Claimed Rs. 2,000/- 3. Loss of consortium of wife Pramila Claimed Rs. 50,000/- 4. Loss of love and affection of father so far as claimant No. 2 Rohan is concerned and loss of love and affection of son so far as claimant No. 3 Amarsingh is concerned. Claimed Rs. 5,00,000/- 5. Mental agony suffered by Ravi Choudhary Claimed Rs. 25,000/- 6. Loss of estate Claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- 7. Expenses of cremation Claimed Rs. 25,000/- ----------------- In all Rs. 22,02,000/- 6. Respondents denied the assertions and further claimed that Ravi Choudhary, driver of the scooter was negligent in driving the scooter and dashed against the tractor. The speed of scooter was so fast that he could not stop the vehicle even after locating the turn being taken by the tractor. They have further submitted that the claim is highly exaggerated and inflated. 7. The speed of scooter was so fast that he could not stop the vehicle even after locating the turn being taken by the tractor. They have further submitted that the claim is highly exaggerated and inflated. 7. Learned Tribunal found that accident happened because of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of the tractor and Ravi Choudhary died of injuries sustained in accident. 8. The assertions of the respondents as to the contributory negligence has been rejected. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,10,000/- on different counts which are enumerated below: 1. Expenses of treatment Rs. 2,000/- 2. Loss of consortium to claimant No. 1 Pramila Rs. 20,000/- 3. Pain and suffering of Ravi Choudhary between period sustaining injuries and death: Rs. 1,000/- 4. Expenses for cremation and last rites: Rs. 7,000/- 5. Loss of love and affection, suffered by Rohan claimant No. 2 Rs. 4,000/- 6. Loss to the estate and the expectation of life: Rs. 26,000/- 7. General damages,: After assessing the income Rs, 25000/- as a sharer of the profit of Firm Decoration Co., Rs. 3,000/- per year from sale of milk Rs. 28,000/- 8. Dependency has been assessed to Rs. 18000/- per year and after applying a multiplier of 25; ------------- General damages have been assessed to: Rs.4,50,000/- ------------- Thus, in all they have been awarded Rs, 5,10,000/- with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of petition dated 22.7.1992 till realisation. 9. A direction for specific payment of the claimant has also been made whereby Rs. 50,000/- has been directed to be paid to claimant No. 3, father of deceased, Rs. 2,60,000/- to claimant widow of deceased and Rupees 2,00.000/- to claimant No. 2 minor son Rohan. 10. The Award, as above, has been challenged by'owner and insurer of the vehicle. 11. The contention of learned Counsel for appellants is that learned Tribunal has adopted method of multiplier and thereafter has made additions in the compensation on different headings. The multiplier applied in the case is much higher. Similarly, the income assessed is also on the higher side. It has also been contended that the compensation on the heading of loss of love and affection has also been highly inflated. 12. Learned Tribunal committed an error in granting compensation on the heading of loss to estate and expectation of ife and the future loss of profit. 13. Similarly, the income assessed is also on the higher side. It has also been contended that the compensation on the heading of loss of love and affection has also been highly inflated. 12. Learned Tribunal committed an error in granting compensation on the heading of loss to estate and expectation of ife and the future loss of profit. 13. As against it the respondents have filed cross-objection and further claimed enhancement of the amount of compensation. 14. The Apex Court of this country has enunciated following principle of law with respect to payment of compensation in such cases of death by Motor Accident as reported in 1994 M.P.L.J. 520 : , General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas and Ors.: 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 Courts have justified a departure from the multiplier method on the ground that Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, insofar as it envisages the compensation to be vjust', the statutory determination of a 'just' compensation would unshackle the exercise from any rigid foiTnula. 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 Supreme Cpurt in the judgment referred above has disapproved the determination of compensation on the basis of entire future earnings for over the period of lost life expectancy then making deduction for uncertainties of life is unscientific and impermissible. In such a situation we would examine the annual income and dependency of the family on the basis of evidence adduced in the case for arriving at a figure of just compensation as the fact of rash and negligent driving has also been challenged (but though not seriously) and, therefore, that is also required to be examined. 15. In such a situation we would examine the annual income and dependency of the family on the basis of evidence adduced in the case for arriving at a figure of just compensation as the fact of rash and negligent driving has also been challenged (but though not seriously) and, therefore, that is also required to be examined. 15. C.W. 3 Shyamkumar who claims to be the pillion rider on the scooter has stated that tractor came in a high speed from the side of Daloda and took a sudden turn which resulted in collision. Both of them i.e. Ravi Choudhary, driver of scooter and he himself were thrown. Ravi Choudhary sustained injuries and died in the night itself. The fact of injury and the death has been proved by C.W. 1 Dr. P.L. Rathore. 16. NAW-1 Shankarlal, driver of tractor-trolley, has on the other hand stated that while driving the tractor he took a turn near Daloda-Dak Bungalow towards Ratlam, a scooter came all of a sudden and dashed against his tractor but this fact does not find place in the written statement submitted by driver Shankarlal (NAW-1). It appears driver was prosecuted also. In our opinion, therefore, the finding of learned Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the tractor calls for no interference. We also affirm the same and hold that accident happened because of the rash and negligent driving of the tractor especially because of sudden turn having been taken by the driver. It is also worth mentioning that heavier the vehicle heavier lies the responsibility. Person driving the heavier vehicle is required to be more cautious. It was the duty of the driver of the tractor-trolley to have taken precaution before taking a sudden turn from the cross-road. 17. C.W.4 Kamal Choudhary, Advocate, brother of deceased has stated that his brother Ravi Choudhary was partner in a firm who was running Decoration Centre. He has further stated that Ravi was getting Rs. 5000/- as pay. But on questions by the Court he admitted that there was no mention in the account-books about the monthly payment to Ravi. It has further been admitted that Ravi was responsible for the losses and income both. In such a situation the assertion about the monthly payment appears to be incorrect and has rightly been not accepted. 18. Claimants have filed copy of the assessment, made by Income Tax Department. It has further been admitted that Ravi was responsible for the losses and income both. In such a situation the assertion about the monthly payment appears to be incorrect and has rightly been not accepted. 18. Claimants have filed copy of the assessment, made by Income Tax Department. This accident occurred on 24.5.1992 and, therefore, the Income Tax Returns of the previous years would be relevant. The income of subsequent year may have been exaggerated for the purpose of getting enhanced compensation. The Income Tax Deptt, has accepted the income of firm Shri Decoration Centre for the assessment years 91-92 to the tune of Rs. 59,140/- which can be rounded upto Rs. 60,000/-. Since this figure represents the income of the firm for the year immediately preceding the year of death and, therefore, that represents the real income. Since Ravi Choudhary was holding 1/3rd share his income would be deemed to be Rs. 20,000/- per year from the business of the firm Shri Decoration Centre. Learned Tribunal has accepted income to be Rs. 25,000/- per year from the firm which does not appear to be correct. We, therefore, modify and assess the income from the share and profit of the firm to be Rs. 20,000/- per year. 19. It has further been stated that Ravi Choudhary was earning nearly Rs. 1,000/- per month from the sale of milk. Learned Tribunal has accepted Rs. 3,000/- only as income from the sale of milk which comes to only Rs. 250/- per month. Mr. Amarsingh, father of Ravi Choudhary, has stated this income to be about Rs. 1000/- per month. Learned Tribunal has assessed this income to be on the lower side and, therefore, the income @ Rs. 500/- per month i.e. Rs. 6000/-per year from the sale of milk appears to be correct and that ought to have been accepted by learned Tribunal. We, therefore, enhance the income on this heading from Rs. 3000/- per year to Rs. 6000/- per year. 20. Thus, total income comes to Rs. 26-27 thousands per year. If 1/3rd is deducted towards the personal expenditure of deceased the dependency of the family would come to more than Rs. 17,000/- which may be rounded to Rs. 18,000/- per year. Looking to the future prospect of the business of decoration and likely increase in the income thereby, we accept the dependency of the family to Rs. If 1/3rd is deducted towards the personal expenditure of deceased the dependency of the family would come to more than Rs. 17,000/- which may be rounded to Rs. 18,000/- per year. Looking to the future prospect of the business of decoration and likely increase in the income thereby, we accept the dependency of the family to Rs. 20,000/-per year (by accepting average income taking into consideration of future prospects also to Rs. 30,000/- per year). 21. Deceased Ravi Choudhary was aged about 28 to 29 years. In such a situation a maximum multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied. However, looking to the present trend as the maximum multiplier has been accepted to be 18 we hold that a multiplier of 16 ought to be applied in this case. 22. Thus, the loss to the family and the general damages payable would come to Rs. 3,20,000/- (16 x 20,000/-). 23. Learned Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. 2,00,0/- towards expenses for the treatment. For the loss of consortium and love and affection to the wife and child and loss of love and affection to father if calculated @ Rs. 5000/- per head; the same will come to Rs. 15,000/- as awarded in Susamma Thomas's case (supra). 24. Learned Tribunal has awarded separate amount for pain and suffering to Ravi Choudhary and towards the expenses for cremation and last rites. Once the multiplier method has been adopted the expenses are not required to be separately assessed. 25. Similarly the loss of estate was also not required to be separately assessed after accepting the principle of multiplier system. In our opinion Rs. 3,20,000+ Rs. 17,000/-which may be rounded upto Rs. 3,40,000/- would be just and proper compensation. We, therefore, partly accept the appeal filed by the Insurance Co. and modify and reduce the compensation payable to Rs. 3,40,000/-. 26. We find no force in the cross-objection filed by the claimant-respondents and, therefore, that deserves dismissal. 27. Learned Tribunal has awarded interest @ 15% per annum. In such a situation interest @ 12% per annum would be the proper interest and, therefore, that also requires to be modified. 28. As a result appeal filed by owner and the insurer partly succeeds and the cross-objection filed by claimant-respondents is rejected. The claimant respondents i.e. respondents No. 2 to 4 here are entitled to compensation of Rs. In such a situation interest @ 12% per annum would be the proper interest and, therefore, that also requires to be modified. 28. As a result appeal filed by owner and the insurer partly succeeds and the cross-objection filed by claimant-respondents is rejected. The claimant respondents i.e. respondents No. 2 to 4 here are entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,40,000/- with interest @ 12/) p.a. from the date of application till realisation of the same. 29. Out of the compensation so assessed Rs. 40,000/- with interest accrued thereon shall be paid to Mr. Amarsingh, father of Ravi Choudhary and the rest of the amount shall be equally divided between the widow and the child i.e. Smt. Pramila and Rohan, 80% of the amount payable to Rohan shall be kept in Fixed Deposit for a period of ten years with some Nationalised Bank. There shall be automatic renewal till he gains age of majority. No loan against that amount shall be granted. The mother of Rohan (Smt. Pramila) or in her absence the grant-father of Rohan would be entitled to withdraw the interest accruing thereon under the orders of the Tribunal. 30. 50% amount payable to Smt. Pramila shall also be kept in interest paying scheme of Fixed Deposit with some Nationalised Bank for a period of ten yi nis. No loan against that amount shall be granted. There will be automa t ic rene w.i i for another five years. Smt. Pramila would be entitled to withdraw the interest only under the orders of the Tribunal. 31. The amount payable to Mr. Amarsingh and rest of the amount payable to Rohan and Smt. Pramila may be paid in cash. Counsel fee Rs. 1500/-.