JUDGMENT : Gurusharan Sharma, J. On 14.5.1984, one Brajkishore Thakur, husband of respondent no. 1 was travelling on a motor-cycle, bearing registration No. DEX 4185, which was being driven by one Surendra Thakur. It was dashed by a mini bus, bearing registration no. BHF 715, which was coming from opposite side at a high speed and was being driven rashly and negligently. As a result of which Braj Kishore Thakur was crushed on the spot. He was admitted in Sadar Hospital at Muzaffarpur. From there the injured was shifted to Patna Medical College Hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries on 24.5.1984 at about 4 P.M. 2. On the basis of evidence brought on record in the Claim Case no. 39 of 1984 filed by the widow and children of the deceased Braj Kishore Thakur under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Claims Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident had taken place as its driver failed to control speed of the bus and it dashed against the motor-cycle, on which the deceased was travelling and, as a result of which, he died. Accordingly, the accident took place on account of negligence of driver of the mini bus. 3. The Tribunal found that the deceased was earning Rs. 2000/- per month, out of which Rs. 500/- per month was deducted towards his personal expenses and the loss to annual dependency was calculated at Rs. 18,000.00 (i.e. Rs. 1500.00 x 12). 4. The deceased was 35 years old at the time of accident. The tribunal fixed his life expectancy at 70 years and multiplied the loss of annual dependency of Rs. 18000/- with 35 on the ground that the family was deprived of his earnings for 35 years, and calculated the total amount of compensation under the Act at Rs. 6,30,000.00. payable to the claimants, with 12% interest per annum from 13.11.1984, on which date the claim application was filed, till payment. 5. In my opinion, the tribunal has committed an error in deducting only 1/4th from monthly income of the deceased towards his personal expenses per month. 6,30,000.00. payable to the claimants, with 12% interest per annum from 13.11.1984, on which date the claim application was filed, till payment. 5. In my opinion, the tribunal has committed an error in deducting only 1/4th from monthly income of the deceased towards his personal expenses per month. It is well settled that in the absence of any evidence it was open to deduct 1/3rd of the gross income towards the personal living expenses of the deceased and to treat the balance as the amount likely to have been spent on the members of the family and the dependents. In this regard reference may be made to a decision of the apex court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas & others ( AIR 1994 S.C. 1631 ). Accordingly after deducting 1/3rd amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased in the present case, the loss of annual dependency comes to (Rs. 1334.00 x 12) 16008.00. 6. Further the aforesaid loss of dependency should capitalise with the appropriate multiplier. In the present case the tribunal fell into an error in the choice of the multiplier and used higher multiplier of 35 showing lack of awareness of the back ground of the multiplier system in Davies vs. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd., (1942) All ER 657, which was followed by the apex court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & others vs. Trilok Chandra & others, (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 362. 7. In G.M. Kerala SRTC (supra) it was observed that usually in English Courts the operative multiplier rarely exceeded 16 as maximum. Courts in India too followed the same pattern till recently when tribunal/courts began to use a hybrid method of using the method propounded in Nance vs. British Columbia Electric Railway Company Ltd., (1951) 2 All ER 448 without making deduction for imponderables. However, the said situation was changed with the enactment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended by Amendment Act 54 of 1994. 8. In the present case the accident had taken place on 14.5.1984 and so it is governed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In U.P. State RTC (supra) it was observed that even under the 1988 Act the multiplier can not exceed 18 years purchase factor. This was the improvement over the earlier position (under 1939 Act) that ordinarily the multiplier was not to exceed 16. In U.P. State RTC (supra) it was observed that even under the 1988 Act the multiplier can not exceed 18 years purchase factor. This was the improvement over the earlier position (under 1939 Act) that ordinarily the multiplier was not to exceed 16. This will come down accordingly as the age of the deceased person (or that of the dependents, whichever is higher) goes up. In the present case, accordingly, the loss of annual dependency of Rs. 16008.00, if capitalized on a multiplier of 16 (the maximum), the compensation would work out to Rs. 2,56,128.00. In my view, the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 2,56,128.00 as total amount of compensation under the Act and the impugned JUDGMENT : and award is modified to this extent. 9. It is said that a sum of Rs. 15,000.00 has already been paid to the claimants towards interim compensation under Section 92A of the Act, pursuant to the ORDER :dated 29.4.1989, passed by the tribunal. The said amount, as such, is liable to be deducted from the total amount of compensation. 10. The rate of interest of 12% from the date of claim application (13.12.1984) till payment is, in the facts and circumstances of the case left undisturbed. 11. It appears that pursuant to ORDER :s dated 23.3.1994, 24.10.1994 and 25.5.1995, a total sum of Rs. 6,15,000/-, including statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- was deposited in this court respectively by Chalan No. 8 dated 8.4.1994, Chalan No. 165 dated 30.11.1994 and Chalan No. 119 dated 28.6.1995. Out of which, pursuant to ORDER :dated 25.5.1995, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- has already been withdrawn by the respondent no. 1. 12. Accordingly the office is directed to calculate amount of interest on the compensation amount in accordance with law and deducting the amount already paid to the claimants, permit the claimants-respondents to withdraw the balance amount out of the aforesaid amount deposited in this court on proper verification and in accordance with law. However, in the same manner the appellant. Insurance Company shall be entitled to withdraw the balance amount. 13. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned JUDGMENT : and award and directions, this appeal is disposed of, but without costs.