JUDGMENT 1. - The legal representatives of truck owner Shri Durgaram-appellant have filed this appeal feeling aggrieved by the award dated 15.5.1985 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar whereby the learned Tribunal Judge passed award of Rs. 1,48,000/- in favour of the claimants of deceased Jogendra Singh. 2. The fatal accident occurred on 13.8.1978 at about 4.00 p.m. Jogendra Singh alongwith his brothers Jai Prakash and Banarsi Das went towards Padampur on bicycle and while all the three were returning, Jogendra Singh who was on a separate bicycle was hit by truck No. RJK 3093 which was being driven rashly and negligently by Ramdayal. He fell down and was run over by the above truck. The truck was coming from the opposite direction with high speed so much so that even after hiting Jogendra Singh, the vehicle could not be controlled and fell into the canal. Jogendra Singh died on the spot. The FIR of the occurrence was lodged at Police Station, Sri Ganganagar by Jai Prakash on the same day after half an hour of the accident. The police registered a case under section 304-A and inspected the site and prepared site memo and plan exhibits 4 & 7. 3. At the relevant, the deceased was a constable in B.S.F. and was drawing consolidated salary of Rs. 435/- per month. The claim petition was filed by the parents of the deceased, namely, Kashi Ram and Shanti Devi and his wife Santosh and two minor sons Sahdev and Bharat Kumar. It may be stated that during the pendency of the claim petition, the truck owner Durga Ram died and his legal representatives Nos. 2/1 to 2/2 were brought on record. The claim was contested by the owner as well as the Insurance Co. The accident and the death of Jogendra Singh were not denied but it was emphatically denied that the driver Ramdayal was driving the above vehicle rashly and negligently. The quantum of compensation was also disputed. 4. On the pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal Judge framed the following issues: 1 . Whether on 13.8.1978, Ramdayal, by driving truck No. RJK-3093 rashly and negligently caused death of Jogendra Singh near Bhatta Kalberiya Rahchak 3-A on the Ganganagar Road, 2. Whether the claimants were entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation ? 3. Whether the non-petitioners are liable for the above claim ? Whether on 13.8.1978, Ramdayal, by driving truck No. RJK-3093 rashly and negligently caused death of Jogendra Singh near Bhatta Kalberiya Rahchak 3-A on the Ganganagar Road, 2. Whether the claimants were entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation ? 3. Whether the non-petitioners are liable for the above claim ? 4. Relief. 5. The claimants produced Ramnath, Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta, Kautilya Chand, Jai Prakash, Banarsi Das, Harnam Singh, Kashi Ram and Rakesh Singh. The non- petitioners, in the claim petition, did not produce any rebuttal evidence. The learned Tribunal Judge decided the issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants by appreciating the testimony of the witnesses produced by the claimants. Regarding issue No. 2 & 3, the finding of the learned Tribunal Judge was that at the relevant time deceased Jogendra Singh was an employee in B.S.F. and was drawing a consolidated salary of Rs. 435/-per month. He was of 27 years old at the time of accident and could have lived up to the age of 75. He also took into consideration the future prospects of the deceased in his service career and determined the dependency at Rs. 600/- per month. He determined the compensation payable to the parents, wife and minor sons separately. In all a sum of Rs. 1,48,000/- was determined as compensation payable by the owner and Insurance Company severally and individually but limited the liability of the Insurance Co. to Rs. 50,000/- only. He further ordered that the above compensation shall carry interest @ 12% per month from the date of filing the petition till payment. 6. This appeal has been filed by the LR's of Shri Durgaram. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has disputed the finding of the Tribunal as regards the rash and negligent act of driver Ramdayal and submitted that Jogendra singh was on the wrong side and Ramdayal in order to save Jogendra Singh turned the vehicle and in the process, the vehicle fell down into the canal. Learned counsel has also disputed the multiplier allowed by the Tribunal. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has supported the award passed by the Tribunal. 10. I have considered the arguments and perused the award. I have also gone through the evidence produced by the claimants in support of issue No. 1. Learned counsel has also disputed the multiplier allowed by the Tribunal. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has supported the award passed by the Tribunal. 10. I have considered the arguments and perused the award. I have also gone through the evidence produced by the claimants in support of issue No. 1. In fact, there is over-wehelming evidence produced by the claimants that Ramdayal was very rash and negligent in driving the vehicle and hit Jogendra Singh by bringing the vehicle on the wrong side. As a result of which Jogendra Singh was run over and died on the spot. The vehicle was being driven at a very high speed. It could not be controlled even after running over Jogendra Singh and after covering a long distance fell into the canal. The eye-witnesses Ramnath, Jai Prakash and Banarsi Das have fully supported this fact. The FIR and the site plan further corroborated the above conclusion. I, therefore, agree with the finding of the Tribunal as regards issue No.1 11. As regards the quantum of damages, it is not in dispute that the deceased was aged 27 at the time of accident and was an employee of B.S.F. He was drawing a consolidated salary of Rs. 435/- per month. The learned Judge ought to have determined the compensation as a whole and then ought to have framed a policy for disbursement of the same in the light of the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 584 and reiterated in General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C. v. Sushmma Thomos, (1994) 2 SCC 176 . As a matter of fact, the theory regarding quantam of damages underwent a sea change. As a matter of fact, the theory regarding quantam of damages underwent a sea change. The whole theory was reviewed in General Manager Kerala, S.R.T.C.'s case and it was held : "For assessment of damages to compensate the dependants, it has to take into account many imponderables, e.g., the life expeactancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether. "The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years purchase. "Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis "and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master" since there are so often many imponderables. In every case "it is the overall picture that matters", and the Court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered. "The multiplier method is logically sound and legally well-established method of ensuring a 'just' compensation which will make for uniformity and certainty of the awards. A departure from this method can only be justified in rare and extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases." 12. I, therefore, endeavour to assess the quantam of damages in the instant case by taking into consideration all the relevant factors like the age of the deceased, his monthly income, dependency of the family members and the service prospects of the deceased etc. There is no dispute that the deceased was of 27 years of age at the time of accident and he was drawing a consolidated salary of Rs. 43.5/- per month. There is no dispute that the deceased was of 27 years of age at the time of accident and he was drawing a consolidated salary of Rs. 43.5/- per month. At the relevant time he was a constable in the B.S.F. and it cannot be gainsaid that he would have several opportunities of promotion and enhancement in his emoluments. For guidance I would again refer to General Manager Kerala S.R.T.C.'s case. 'the facts of the case were that the deceased was 39 years of age. His income was Rs. 1,032/- per month.The Supreme Court observed : "Of course, the future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand. While the chance of the multiplier is determined by two factors, namely, the rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy and the age of the deceased or of the claimant whichever is higher, the ascertainment of the multiplicand is a more difficult exercise. Indeed, many factors have to be put into the scales to evaluate the contingencies of the future. All contingencies of the future need not necessarily be baneful. The deceased person in this case had a more or less stable job. It will not be inappropriate to take a reasonably liberal view of the prospects of the future and in estimating the gross income it will be unreal enable to estimate the loss of dependency on the present actual income of Rs. 1,032/- per month. We think, having regard to the prospects of advancement in the future career, respecting which there is evidence on record, we will not be in error in making a higher estimate of monthly income at Rs. 2,000/- as the gross income. From this has to be deducted his personal living expenses, the quantum of which again depends on various factors such as whether the style of living was spartan or bohemian. In the absence of evidence it is not unusual to deduct one-third of the gross income towards the personal living expenses and treat the balance as the amount likely to have been spent on the members of the family and the depandents. This loss of dependency should capitalize with the appropriate multiplier. In the present case we can take about Rs. 1,400/- per month or Rs. This loss of dependency should capitalize with the appropriate multiplier. In the present case we can take about Rs. 1,400/- per month or Rs. 17,000/-per year as the loss of dependency and if capitalized on a multiplier of 12, which is appropriate to the age of the deceased, the compensation would work out to (Rs. 17,000/- x 12 = 2,03,000/-) to which is added the usual award for loss of consortium and loss of the estate each in the conventional sum of Rs. 15,000./-." 13. Taking into consideration the above observations made in the above case, in my opinion it would be just fair and reasonable to make an estimate of monthly income of Rs. 750/- per month. From this has to be deducted his personal living expenses, the quantam of which again depends on various factors as stated in the above passage of the Supreme Court cases. Normally a sum equivalent to one-third may deducted in this respect. The dependency thus comes to Rs. 500/- per month. In General Manager Kerala S.R.T.C. case a multiplier of 17 was approved but subsequently in U.P. State Road Transport Corp. & Ors. v. Trilokchand & Ors., 1996(5) JT 356 the Apex Court expressed the view that the maximum multiplier of 18 can be allowed. I, therefore, allow the multiplier of 18. After determining the various factors for determining the quantam of damages the same comes to Rs. 1,08,000/-. To this quantam of damages loss of consortium may be added to the tune of Rs. 15,000/-. Thus, in all a sum of Rs. 1,23,000/- should be the fair, just and reasonable award in the circumstances of the case. 14. For an apportionment for the above compensation amongst the claimants, I agree with the ratio determined by the learned Tribunal Judge. For the disbursement of the compensation, I can do no better than to direct the Tribunal to follow the scheme as enunciated in Union Carbide Corp. v. Union of India (supra) which is quoted at age 187-188 of (1994) 2 SCC 176 .For the above reasons, I accept the appeal in part. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal Judge is reduced from Rs. 1,48,000/- to Rs. 1,23,000/-. The order regarding interest is maintained. v. Union of India (supra) which is quoted at age 187-188 of (1994) 2 SCC 176 .For the above reasons, I accept the appeal in part. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal Judge is reduced from Rs. 1,48,000/- to Rs. 1,23,000/-. The order regarding interest is maintained. The ratio of apportionment as ordered by the Tribunal Judge is also upheld but the scheme of payment will be recast by the Tribunal Judge at the time of disbursement and he is authorised to pass an order on the lines suggested in Union Carbide Corporation's case. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Orders according. *******