JUDGMENT R. N. Prasad, J. Both the appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 25.5.1992 passed by 3rd. Addl. District Judge-cum-Judge, Claim Tribunal, Hajipur in Claim case nos. 36/86 and 37/86. In both the appeals National Insurance Company Ltd.; is the appellant and in both the appeals common question of law and facts are involved and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. 2. The claim case no. 36/86 was filed by the widow of Shambhu Nath Sharma, respondent no. 1 of M. A. No. 208/92 and on behalf of minor sons and daughters, respondent nos. 2 to 5 and also by mother of the deceased, respondent no. 6 against National Insurance Company Ltd., appellant, Dwarika Nath Thakur, Owner of the vehicle, respondent no. 7 and Kamla Kant Jha, driver of the vehicle, respondent no. 8. Claim case no. 37/86 was filed by Saroj Kumar, widow of Kamla Kant Sharma, respondent no. 1 of M.A. 210/92 and on behalf of minor son of the deceased Kamla Kant Sharma and also by Sita Devi mother of the deceased Kamla Kant Sharma against National Insurance Company Ltd., the appellant, Dwarika Nath Thakur, owner of the vehicle and Kamla Kant Jha, driver of the vehicle. 3. The deceased Shambhu Nath Sharma and Kamla Kant Sharma were cousin brothers. They were employed in M/s. Amrapali Gas Sewa situated at Hajipur. Shambhu Nath Sharma was aged about 35 years at the time of accident, whereas Kamla Kant Sharma was aged about 26 years at the time of accident. Shambhu Nath Sharma was Manager in M/s. Amprapali Gas Sewa and was drawing salary of Rs. 1200/- per month. Kamla Kant Sharma was employed in M/s Amrapali Gas Sewa and was drawing salary of Rs. 700/- per month. Shambhu Nath Sharma was graduate in Arts, whereas Kamla Kant Shrama was graduate in Science with distinction in Mathematics. On 19.4.1986 at about 9 A.M. both were going to attend their duty in the office of Amrapali Gas Sewa situated at Hajipur. When they reached near the N. E. Railway crossing in 54A, railway gate was closed as goods train was to pass. Both the deceased were standing near Railway gate and were waiting for the goods train to pass. All of a sudden a bus bearing registration no. When they reached near the N. E. Railway crossing in 54A, railway gate was closed as goods train was to pass. Both the deceased were standing near Railway gate and were waiting for the goods train to pass. All of a sudden a bus bearing registration no. B. H. F. 38 came from behind in a very high speed and dashed Shambhu Nath Shrama and Kamla Kant Sharma causing death of Shambhu Nath Sharma instantaneously at the spot. Kamla Kant Sharma sustained Serious injury. He was taken to P.M.C.H. Patna but he died on the same day. The bus was being driven so rashly and negligently and in such a speed that it crashed the railway gate and collided with the goods train which happened to pass just at that time. In both the cases claimants have claimed compensation around Rs. 9 lacs each. 4. A criminal case was also instituted with respect to the accident in which Shambhu Nath Sharma and Kamla Kant Sharma were killed. Certified copy of First Information Report and Photo copy of postmortem repot were also filed but those were not exhibited. 5. Both the cases were tried together and accordingly evidence was recorded. Dwarika Nath Thakur owner of the bus bearing registration no. B.H.F. 38 filed written statement stating therein that claimants are not entitled to any compensation. The claim of claimants is excessive. The deceased were not employed. They were not going to attend the duly on 19.4.1986. The bus in question was not being driven rashly and negligently by the driver. The bus was being driven carefully and cautiously. Due to defect in break the accident took place. Contents of First Information Report of Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No. 112 dated 19.4.1986 are not correct. The said Vehicle was insured under the National Insurance Company Ltd. to cover the risk under the aforesaid policy and as such liability is of the Insurance Company. 6. A separate written statement was filed on behalf of National Insurance Company Ltd; wherein the company has denied the liability to pay the compensation and stated that claim of the claimants is excessive and arbitrary. The allegation that bus in question was being driven rashly and negligently is not correct. The company is unable to admit that bus no. B.H.F. 38 was insured under the company. The allegation that bus in question was being driven rashly and negligently is not correct. The company is unable to admit that bus no. B.H.F. 38 was insured under the company. The owner of the vehicle be directed to produce policy of insurance driving licence, road permit etc. Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. 7. The claimants adduced evidence which was recorded in both the claim cases. A.W.I. and 2 are witnesses who were present at the place of occurrence at the time of accident. A. W. 3 is a witness who was making pairvi in both the claim cases. A. W. 4 is widow of Shambhu Nath Sharma. A. W. 5 is widow of Kamla Kant Sharma. The claimants also adduced documentary evidence which has been marked Exhibits. However, no oral evidence has been adduced on behalf of National Insurance Compo Ltd. or on behalf of owner of the bus. However, owner of the bus filed some documents in support of the case. 8. The Tribunal on consideration of evidence held that Shambhu Nath Sharma and Kamla Kant sharma died in accident due to rash and negligent driving of the bus in question and, accordingly, allowed compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,34,000/- to the claimant of claim case no. 36/86 Rs. 1,87,480/- to the claimant of claim case No. 37/86 and interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals submitted that compensations awarded to the claimants in both the cases are excessive, arbitrary and against the provision of law. The relevant documents such as Insurance Policy, driving licence, permit of the bus etc. were not brought on the record in accordance with law and as such the impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants-respondent supported the order of the Tribunal and stated that relevant documents have been brought on the record and there is no infirmity in the order impugned. 10. To resolve the question raised by learned counsel for the appellant, it is necessary to deal with the evidence brought on the record. A. W. I. and A. W. 2 both claimed that they were present at the time of accident at the place of occurrence. A. W. I. deposed that accident took place in his presence. 10. To resolve the question raised by learned counsel for the appellant, it is necessary to deal with the evidence brought on the record. A. W. I. and A. W. 2 both claimed that they were present at the time of accident at the place of occurrence. A. W. I. deposed that accident took place in his presence. The deceased namely, Shambhu Nath Sharma and Kamla Kant Sharma were standing near the railway Gumti as it was closed. Bus bearing registration no. B.H.F. 38 came from the side of Muzaffarpur in a very high speed which dashed the deceased and also creased the Railway Gumit and dashed with the train. Shambhu Nath Sharma died then and there and Kamal Kant Sharma also died in the Hospital. Both the deceased were employed in M/s. Amrapali Gas Sewa Haijpur. Shambhu Nath Sharma was aged about 32 years and Kamla Kant Sharma was aged 26 years at the time of accident and they were hail and hearty. Similar is the evidence of A. W. 2 However, he stated that Shambhu Nath Sharma was Manager in M/s. Amarpali Gas Sewa and was getting Rs. 1200/- per month. Kamla Kant Sharma was employed in the said M/s Amrapali Gas Sewa and was getting Rs. 700/- per month. Both were graduate. Kamla Kant Sharma was also trained in typing. The witnesses were cross-examine at length but nothing cogent was elicited to discarded their evidence. A.W.3 has deposed that he was doing pairvi in both the claim cases. Shambhu Nath Sharma, deceased, was his nephew and Kamla Kant Sharma was his son. Both were the only sons of their parents. Both were killed in accident caused by bus no. B.H.F. 38 on 19.4.1986 near Railway Gumti. Both the deceased were employed in M/s. Amrapali Gas Sewa, Hajipur. Shambhu Nath Sharma was Bachelor in Arts and he was getting Rs. 1200/- per month as salary. Kamla Kant Sharma was graduate in Science and was getting Rs. 700/- per month. The claimants in both the cases were dependent on the deceased. A.W.4 is widow of Shambhu Nath Sharma. She has stated that her husband died in bus accident on 19.4.1986. The number of bus was B.H.F 38. He was aged about 32 years and claimants were being maintained by him. He was in service in M/s Amrapali Gas Sewa. Hajipur and was getting Rs. 1200/- per month. A.W.4 is widow of Shambhu Nath Sharma. She has stated that her husband died in bus accident on 19.4.1986. The number of bus was B.H.F 38. He was aged about 32 years and claimants were being maintained by him. He was in service in M/s Amrapali Gas Sewa. Hajipur and was getting Rs. 1200/- per month. He was spending Rs. 100/- for himself and the remaining amount was being spent over maintenance of his family. His cousin brother kamla Kant Sharma was also killed in the same accident A.W. 5 is widow of Kamla Kant Sharma. She has deposed that her husband was killed in bus accident on 19.4.1986. The number of bus was B.H.F. 38. Her husband was aged about 26 years. He was working in M/S Amrapali Gas Sewa and was getting Rs. 700/- per month. He was Bachelor in Science and he also completed typing training. He was spending Rs. 70/- for himself and remaining amount was spent over the maintenance of claimants. The witnesses were cross-examined but nothing could be elicited to discard their evidence. 11. The claimants in claim case no. 36/86 also produced documents in support of their case, such as death certificate, Ext. 1, Certificate showing payment of salary Rs. 1200/- per month, Ext. 2, certificate showing that Shambhu Nath Sharma was bachelor of Arts, Ext. 3, Matriculation certificate, Ext. 3/A and also filed copy of post mortem report and certified copy of first Information Report. Similarly the claimants in claim case No. 37/86 also filed documents i.e. death certificate, Ext. 1/A, mark-sheet, Ext.2/A, shorthand certificate, Ext. 3, Typing certificate, Ext.3/A, Matriculation certificate Ext. 3/B and salarly certificate showing payment of Rs. 700/-, Ext. 4 and also copy of postmortem report. The owner of the vehicle Dwarika Nath Thakur also filed document i.e. photo copy of Insurance Policy showing that it was valid for the period 17.6.1985 to 16.6.1986 of bus no. B.H.F. 38 Photo copy of permit of the bus showing that it was valid for the period 14.4.1986 to 19.4.1986 Photo copy of tax token showing that tax was paid up to 30.6.1986 and photo copy of driving licence of Kamla Kant Jha valid up to 6.12.1988. 12. B.H.F. 38 Photo copy of permit of the bus showing that it was valid for the period 14.4.1986 to 19.4.1986 Photo copy of tax token showing that tax was paid up to 30.6.1986 and photo copy of driving licence of Kamla Kant Jha valid up to 6.12.1988. 12. Thus from the discussion made above it is evident that claimants have been able to establish that both the deceased namely, Shambhu Nath Sharma and Kamla Kant Sharma met with accident on 19.4.1986 caused by bus no. B.H.F. 38 which resulted into their death and the claimants are wives, minor children and parents. They have also succeeded in establishing that both the deceased were employed in M/s. Amrapali Gas Sewa, Hajipur and Shambhu Nath Shrama was getting Rs. 1200/- per month and Kamla Kant Sharma was getting Rs. 700/- per month at the relevant time of death. It is true that documents filed by the owner of the vehicle were not exhibited but the documents filed by him clearly establish that bus in question was validly insured at the relevant time of accident. It had valid permit and tax token at the relevant time. The driver of the bus Kamla Kant Jha had valid driving licence up to 6.12.1988. Those documents are available on the record but the Insurance company neither adduced oral nor documentary evidence to doubt about the aforesaid documents. In the written statement Insurance Company has vaguely sated that Insurance company is not in a position to admit that vehicle in question was insured, however, denied the liability of payment of compensation. Thus in the circumstances, on the basis of material on record it has become manifest that vehicle in question was validly insured under the Insurance company and had valid permit, tax token and the driver had valid licence and as such Insurance company is liable to pay compensation. 13. The next question arises with respect to determination of the compensation. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier method but not in terms of settled law. In the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Trivendrum -v- Shushma Thomas & ors, A.I.R. 1994 Supreme Court 1631 the Apex court has held that multiplier method of assessment of compensation is proper, logically sound and well established method. Departure can be made from the multiplier method only in extra ordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases. In the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Trivendrum -v- Shushma Thomas & ors, A.I.R. 1994 Supreme Court 1631 the Apex court has held that multiplier method of assessment of compensation is proper, logically sound and well established method. Departure can be made from the multiplier method only in extra ordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases. The multiplier method should be applied in such a way that dependency calculated in money value should fetch same amount of dependency to the claimants if the awarded amount is deposited in Bank or other financial institution in fixed deposit. 14. It has further been held that in determining compensation thought multiplier method two factors, namely, rate of interest appropriate to stable economy and age of the deceased are relevant and it will not be inappropriate to take reasonably liberal view of the prospect of the future in estimating the gross income, In the above mentioned case the income of the deceased was Rs. 1032/- per month and the Apex court considering prospect of advancement of future career estimated monthly income of Rs. 2000/- as gross income and, accordingly determined the compensation after deducting one-third as expenses of the deceased for personal living. 15. In the instant cases the deceased in claim case no 36/86 corresponding to Misc. A. No. 208/92 had income of Rs. 1200/- per month and was aged about 35 years. The future prospect of advancement in life and career have also been pleaded for determining compensation. Having considered the age and prospect of advancement in future career of the deceased it would not be unreasonable to estimate monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1800/- In absence of cogent evidence on the record with regard to expenses by the deceased, one-third from his gross income towards his personal living expenses is deducted, then it comes to Rs. 1200/- per month or Rs. 14400/- per annum as loss of dependency. On applying the multiplier of it would come to Rs. 1, 58, 400/- which would fetch approximately some more than the loss pf, dependency. However, considering the mental agony of the claimants widow of the deceased and deprivation of the conjugal life and also that she has to bring up minor daughters and sons and their marriage, the compensation is fixed at Rs. 1, 70, 000/- in a round figure similarly, the deceased in claim case no. However, considering the mental agony of the claimants widow of the deceased and deprivation of the conjugal life and also that she has to bring up minor daughters and sons and their marriage, the compensation is fixed at Rs. 1, 70, 000/- in a round figure similarly, the deceased in claim case no. 37/86 corresponding to Misc. A. 210/92 had income of Rs. 700/- per month and was aged about 26 years. Considering the future prospect of advancement in life and career as have been pleaded for determining compensation it would not be unreasonable to estimate monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1500/- In absence of cogent evidence on the record with regard to expenses by the deceased, one third from the gross income towards his personal living expenses is deducted, that it comes to Rs. 1000/- per month or Rs. 12000/- per year as loss of dependency. On applying multiplier method of 9 it would come to Rs. 1,08,000/- which would fetch approximately some more than loss of dependency but considering mental agony of the claimant widow of the deceased and deprivation of conjugal life and also that she has to bring up minor son the compensation is fixed at 1,25,000/- in a round figure. 16. Thus both the appeals are partly allowed and compensation in Misc. A. 208/92 is fixed at Rs. 1,70.000/- and in Misc. A. 210/92 at Rs. 1,25,000/- which shall be paid to the claimants by the appellant after deducting the amount, if any paid to the claimant. Besides claimants shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing application till realisation of the said amount which shall be paid by the appellant.