Judgment :- RAJU, J. 1. The above appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation in question who is the respondent in the Claim Petition before the Tribunal below against the award of a compensation of Rs. 4,32,000/- as against a claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- under the judgment and award dated 15.9.94 in M.C.O.P. No. 167/93. The Claim Petition has been filed on account of the death of one Gowthaman. The claimant Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased Gowthaman and Claimant No. 3 is the brother and Claimant No. 4 is the sister of the deceased and therefore, the son and daughter of claimant Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal below was that the deceased was an Engineering Graduate in B.E., Civil and was working in Devi Lakshmanan Constructions at Karaikudi, earning a sum for Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 2,500/- per mensem, that he was aged 24 at the time of his death, that on 16.1.1993 the deceased went to Siravayal to witness the ‘Manjuvirattu’ festival as a pillion rider in the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. TCO No. 547 of which the driver was one Abu Backar. It was also the case of the claimants that at about 3.40 PM when the Motor Cycle was coming between Koratti and Ilangudi, the Bus belonging to the appellant Corporation bearing Registration No. T.N. 63-9030 driven by its driver R.W. 1 in a rash and negligent manner without observing the rules of the road hit the Motor Cycle as a consequence of which the deceased was said to have been thrown out from the Motor Cycle on earth and sustained multiple grievous injuries. Though he was said to have been taken to hospital at Karaikudi in a hired car, he was said to have died en route to Karaikudi. The claimants averred that they had incurred a sum of Rs. 12,500/- by way of expenses for all such activities including the funeral etc., of the deceased, contending that the claimants were all dependants on the deceased and that he would have lived upto 60th year and earned a sum of Rs. 10,50,000/- and more and a compensation of Rs. 10,65,000/- claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- and presented the claim Petition for the said amount. 3. 10,50,000/- and more and a compensation of Rs. 10,65,000/- claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- and presented the claim Petition for the said amount. 3. The respondent-Corporation opposed the claim by contending that the driver of the bus belonging to the Corporation was not in any manner responsible for the accident, that he drove the vehicle carefully and in accordance with the rules of the road, that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident at all and actually the accident resulting in the death of the victim appears to have been caused by a lorry, which after causing the accident ran away without stopping and that with the hope that if the bus of the Corporation is involved, it would be easy for getting compensation and that too a substantial and fabulous amount the claimants have manipulated to make it as though the accident has been caused by the bus in question belonging to the Corporation and its driver. 4. On the above claims and counter claims, the Claim Petition was tried. On the side of the claimants, apart from examining P.Ws. 1 and 2 of which one was the driver of the Motor Cycle of which the victim was a pillion rider, five documents were marked. On the side of the respondent-Corporation in the Court below, one document was marked and R.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined of which one was the driver of the bus and the other was the conductor of the bus. 5. On a consideration of the materials on record, the Tribunal below by its order dated 15.9.1994 came to the conclusion that it is the bus of the Corporation that was involved in the accident and the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal below taking into account the deposition of the father examined as P.W. 1 that his son was earning Rs. 1,500/- per mensem and after allowing a sum of Rs. 100/- towards the personal expenses, further came to the conclusion that he would have earned atleast for another 36 years till the age of 60, the victim being at that time of the age of 24. 1,500/- per mensem and after allowing a sum of Rs. 100/- towards the personal expenses, further came to the conclusion that he would have earned atleast for another 36 years till the age of 60, the victim being at that time of the age of 24. Multiplying the monthly income into annual loss of the dependency and applying further a multiplier of 36 years, the total loss was arrived at Rs. 6,48,000/-. After allowing a deduction of one third amount for lumpsum payment etc., the compensation was fixed at Rs. 4,32,000/- which according to the Tribunal below was the amount which the victim would have given to the family. The Tribunal further apportioned the amount among the four claimants at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and directed that the balance of Rs. 32,000/- with the interest due on the total amount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the Claim Petition till the date of payment to be divided among the four claimants equally. 6. Aggrieved, the above appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation. The learned counsel for the appellant Corporation Mr. P. Pandi strenuously argued that the vehicle of the appellant Corporation was not at all involved in the accident and therefore, the same was not answerable to the claim for the death of the victim Gowthaman and that at any rate, the monthly income arrived at and the multiplier applied in arriving at the total compensation payable are contrary to law and opposed to the decisions of Courts and liable to be therefore, set aside. Argued the learned counsel further that the Tribunal below failed to keep into account the latest pronouncements on the subject and also the fact that the multiplier to be adopted would depend not only upon the age of the victim but also upon the age of the claimants as well and consequently, the quantum arrived at requires to be interfered in this appeal. 7. Per contra , Mr. 7. Per contra , Mr. M. Basker, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimants while adopting the reasons assigned by the Tribunal below, reiterated the stand taken, which had the approval of the Tribunal below reiterated the stand taken, which had the approval of the Tribunal below that the multiplier chosen cannot be said to be erroneous and that at any rate, the ultimate total compensation arrived at and awarded cannot be said to be either unreasonable or arbitrary or too much higher side taking into account the age, the educational qualification and the earnings and the condition of the family of the victim and therefore, no interference is called for at the instance of the appellant-Corporation in this appeal. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side. Before dealing with the respective contentions of the learned counsel appearing on either side, it is appropriate that the relevant decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are referred to. In General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C. v. Susamma Thomas (1994-2-S.C.C. 176), the Apex Court held in unmistakable terms that in assessing the compensation in respect of a motor accident and emphasising the need for a just, fair and reasonable determination, the Court held that the multiplier method of computation alone is the proper, logically sound and well established method for determining the compensation. Their Lordships of the Apex Court also explained the multiplier method and the manner in which it has to be applied in an individual or given case. It was also further highlighted therein that the chance of the multiplier is to be determined by two factors, viz. , the rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy and the age of the deceased or of the claimants whichever is higher and the ascertainment of the multiplic and was considered to be a more difficult exercise having regard to the several factors, which have to be put into scales to evaluate the contingencies of the future. Finally, it was observed therein that rarely the multiplier exceeds 16 as maximum. Finally, it was observed therein that rarely the multiplier exceeds 16 as maximum. In a subsequent decision reported in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Other v. Trilok Chandra and Others (1996-2-L.W. 266), the earlier decision was also considered in great detail in the light of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 as also the table contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the Form of II Schedule. Their Lordships of the Apex Court in the subsequent decision have held that the maximum multiplier can be upto 18 and not necessarily 16 as held in the previous case. The fact that the multiplier cannot exceed 18 years purchase factor has been re-emphasised once again in the said judgment. In paragraph 15 of the said judgment, their Lordships of the Apex Court also emphasised the fact that the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant also invited our attention to the decisions reported in Joginder Nath Maini and others v. Manawar Khan and others . (1992 A.C.J. 561), Corporation of the City of Nagpur v. Nemi Kumar Prabhudas Raibackar (1991 A.C.J. 191) and C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kumbi Kuttan Nair (1970 A.C.T. 110). In C.K. Subramania Iyers case (1970 A.C.J. 110=83 L.W. 46 S.N.) the Apex Court observed that in determining the compensation in a case of the nature in question, the life expectancy of the deceased or of the beneficiaries whichever is shorter is an important factor. In Joginder Nath Maini and others case (1992 A.C.J. 561), a learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court observed that in the case of the death of an unmarried man, where the claimants are the parents, in fixing the multiplier, the age of the parents has to be considered and not the age of the deceased. In the decision reported in 1991 A.C.J. 191 ( Corporation of the City of Nagpur v. Nemi Kumar Prabhudas Raibagkar and others ) a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court equally observed that in the case of the death of a boy of 19 years undergoing a training course in Industrial Training Institute, the age of the claimants, who were the father and mother also has to be given due consideration. 10. 10. We have carefully considered the respective contentions of the parties in the light of the principles noticed supra and the factual positions disclosed on record. So far as the finding relating to the cause for the accident is concerned, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal below committed any serious error warranting our interference. The Tribunal below has taken into account the evidence of P.Ws. particularly of P.W. 2, the driver of the motor cycle and also the fact that the police after due investigation and enquiry has prosecuted the driver of the vehicle in question before the Criminal Court by filing a Charge Sheet. The plea on behalf of the appellant that there was no impact of the accident on the vehicle of the Corporation or that the F.I.R. has been given in the case before the Police after nine hours are not such vital or relevant materials in the case on hand to substantiate the claim that the vehicle of the Corporation was not at all concerned or involved in the accident in question. The damage, if any, to the bus would depend upon the nature of the impact at the time of accident and it would be too much of speculation to surmise that the Police went out of the way unnecessarily or falsely to implicate or involve the vehicle of the Corporation. In the teeth of the materials on record to which specific reference has been made and considered by the Tribunal below, the involvement of the vehicle of the Corporation and the rash and negligent manner of driving of the said vehicle by its driver stood sufficiently proved and therefore, we do not propose to re-appreciate the evidence in a different manner particularly we are not satisfied that the Court below committed any perversity of approach in the matter of appreciation of such materials on record in coming to such a conclusion. The factual findings in this regard appears to be well merited and do not call for our interference. 11. So far as the quantum of compensation awarded is concerned, we are unable to appreciate the formula or principles adopted by the learned District Judge, who disposed of the matter as Tribunal. The factual findings in this regard appears to be well merited and do not call for our interference. 11. So far as the quantum of compensation awarded is concerned, we are unable to appreciate the formula or principles adopted by the learned District Judge, who disposed of the matter as Tribunal. It is beyond comprehension as to how the learned Tribunal could in spite of having made reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in Susammas case supra ( 1994 (2) S.C.C. 176 ) in paragraph 13 of the order choose to adopt 36 years multiplier and adopted a procedure of its own and therefore deducted 1/3 from the sum arrived at as the compensation to be fixed. Consequently, we are unable to sustain the quantum as fixed and the manner of fixation also. It therefore, requires to be re-determined by adopting the well settled principles noticed by us supra in this regard. Though in the Claim Petition the monthly income of the victim was given as Rs. 2,000/- Rs. 2,500/- per mensem, it is seen from the order of the Tribunal below that P.W. 1, the father who is a retired Police Constable has deposed that his son was earning only Rs. 1,500/- per month. The materials produced before the Tribunal below indicated and both parties proceeded before the Court below also op the basis that the victim was an Engineering Graduate. There is no contra materials before us to dispute or doubt the said fact. While that be the position, it is for consideration as to what could be the monthly income to be fixed taking note of the future prospects of such a person. Even if the future prospects should be given due consideration, the net income which he would have spared for the family could not have been more than Rs. 1,500/-. The further fact that he was a bachelor and if he gets married whether the parental family would have received the same throughout till the end of his life is also to be given due consideration. In view of the above, we are of the view that there is no need to interfere with the monthly loss of income to the family at Rs. 1,400/- on an average. On that basis, the annual loss would be Rs. 16,800/-. The question of multiplier to be adopted and applied would require our attention and consideration. In view of the above, we are of the view that there is no need to interfere with the monthly loss of income to the family at Rs. 1,400/- on an average. On that basis, the annual loss would be Rs. 16,800/-. The question of multiplier to be adopted and applied would require our attention and consideration. Keeping into account the age of the father at 65 and mother at 44 as reflected from the materials on record, we consider it appropriate as also just and reasonable to adopt a multiplier of 12. At this stage we have to point out that the sister and brother of the victim could not claim to be the dependants when their parents the claimant Nos. 1 and 2 are alive, merely because the mother is a house wife and the father is a retired official. As long as the parents are alive, it cannot be readily inferred that the brother and sister of the victim were his dependants particularly in the absence of any special or concrete material or circumstance to prove such dependency. Therefore, their age has no relevance in determining the multiplier particularly when the victim was a bachelor and after marriage, it could not be postulated that he will have any concern for the claimants 3 and 4. Thus, totally, the compensation payable to the claimants 1 and 2 would come to Rs. 1,92,000/- and is to be determined at Rs. 1,92,000/-. We consider that it would be appropriate and necessary to round up the figure and make the compensation payable to be Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of the Claim Petition till date of payment. To this extent with reference to the quantum, the award of the Court below shall stand modified. It is made clear that except with reference to the liability mentioned on the appellant-Corporation, the remaining amount, if any, in the Court or other deposit can be withdrawn. Further, we do not make any internal allocation or apportionment of the compensation among the four claimants. The claimants 1 and 2 will be entitled to the compensation and if they are prepared to spare any sum to the other claimants it is for them to do so and this order will not stand in their way to do so. 12. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. The claimants 1 and 2 will be entitled to the compensation and if they are prepared to spare any sum to the other claimants it is for them to do so and this order will not stand in their way to do so. 12. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. In view of the disposal of the appeal, no further orders are necessary in C.M.P. No. 9091/1995.