V. Dutta Gyani, C. J. (Acting)- This appeal at the instance of the National Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and award dated 8.7.96 as passed by the learned Member, .Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karimganj in MAC Case No. 12 of 1993 thereby awarding Rs.3,15,000/- as total compensation minus Rs.25,000/- already paid as interim compensation, to be paid within 60 days from the date of award. 2. It was on 22.2.93 around 2 PM on National Highway No.44 while deceased Abdul Rouf a young boy of 22 years of age was proceeding from Patharkandi to his relation's house in village Tapadarpara on his motor cycle bearing registration No.MZ-01/1885 he was knocked down by the offending vehicle a mini truck bearing Registration No. TR-02/1510 which was on his way to Karimganj from Chiraibari. The vehicle was coming from the opposite direction and dashed against the motor cycle from its front side knocking down Abdul Rouf and the pillion rider Abdul Haque as a result of which Abdul Rouf sustained grievous injuries and so also Abdul Haque. The motor cycle was badly damaged as per Ext P/3. They were immediately rushed to Primary Health Centre, Patharkandi for first-aid. Later on Abdul Rouf was referred to Karimganj Civil Hospital, but on his way to Karimganj Abdul Rouf succumbed to his injuries. 3. The deceased Abdul Rouf was managing his own business of betel nut and his annual income as available on record for the financial year commencing from 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 were Rs.18,500/-, Rs.23,000/- and Rs.28,000/-respectively. Thus, clearly indicating increase in income by about Rs.5,000/- by a year. He was an income tax payee right from the initial stage of his business. 4. The appellant insurance company contested the claim on two grounds, one relating validity of the policy covering date of accident and secondly the extent of liability. It was contended that liability of the appellants was indemnified by the insurance policy. Other mechanical stereo-type objection without any support of facts were also taken by the appellant insurance company is total disregard of the object behind Nationalisation of General Insurance Act, 1972. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - 1. Whether there is any cause of action of the present claim petition? 2. Whether the claim petition is maintainable in the present form? 3. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - 1. Whether there is any cause of action of the present claim petition? 2. Whether the claim petition is maintainable in the present form? 3. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle No.TR-02/1510 (Mini Truck)? 4. Whether the vehicle was validly involved at the relevant time of accident? 5. Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation? If so, how much and by whom it is to be payable? 6. Whether the claimants are entitled to get any relief/reliefs? 5. Heard Mr. SS Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. HRA Choudhury learned counsel appearing for the claimants respondents. 6. As already noted above, the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,15,000/- as compensation applying a multiplier of 20. Only point that has been urged before us is, that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is on a higher side. Referring to a judgment of the Supreme Court as reported in UP State Transport Corporation vs. Trilok-chand & others, (1996) 4 SCC 362 , learned counsel for the appellant has urged that in no case the multiplier could be higher than 18 to that extent the award as passed by the learned Tribunal is erroneous. At this stage it cannot be out of place to refer to yet another judgment of the Supreme Court as reported in General Manager, Kerela State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 , wherein the Apex Court has addressed to the logistic behind application of multiplier with reference to its earlier judgment and held as follows: "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 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." 7. 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." 7. There is no quarrel with the proposition as laid down in Trilok Chand (supra) as relied upon and submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. Going through the impugned judgment, considering the age and income of the deceased vis-a-vis Schedule 2 as appended to section 163 A of the MV Act, 1988 (as amended) there are several other heads for incidents that damage done to the vehicle has not been compensated and it was not merely the case of dependent parents, the father aged about 50 years, mother aged about 45 years and apart from them the children who were also dependent on the deceased. It has come in evidence that on receiving information the claimants had hired a taxi to reach Hospital. The burial expenses are not taken into account so much so, no interest as such has been awarded. The interest awarded is only 10% per annum that too on failure of the insurance company to deposit amount of compensation as awarded and 50% thereof has been deposited under orders of this Court. Be that as it may, if these heads are taken into account, it hardly shows any material difference even if we adopt the multiplier, the total amount of compensation would remain the same. It is in this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and award as passed by the Tribunal. 8. For rate of interest, if the appellant insurance company fails to deposit the balance amount of compensation within 60 days from today, shall be enhanced to 12% PA from the date of original award. 9. The appeal stands dismissed and the misc case also stands disposed.