Judgment 1. This appeal is directed against judgment and award dated 3.9.1998 passed by 10th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Motor Vehicles Claim Case No. 22/98. The appellant- Insurance Company is aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award by which it has been directed to pay a net compensation of Rs. 2,53,260/- only to the respondents which include wife, children and father of the deceased, Satendra Prasad Gupta. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the maintainability of the claim case or the finding that Satendra Prasad Gupta died in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 9.11.1996 at about 12 noon at village Amra Talab on G.T. Road due to rash and negligent act of the Driver of the Truck No.--. Learned counsel for the appellant did not contest the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the legally payable compensation to the claimants-respondents. 3. The only challenge on behalf of the appellant is to the quantum of compensation determined by the learned Tribunal. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that even if the findings of the Tribunal that the deceased had an annual income of Rs. 21,600/- and he was in between 30-32 years of age, is accepted, the net payable compensation would be much less than what has been determined on account of wrong selection of a multiplier of 17. 4. In the facts of the case, it appears that learned Tribunal has rightly calculated the annual dependency of the claimants as Rs. 17,280/- only. The dispute between the parties is mainly with regard to selection of a just and proper multiplier. According to learned counsel for the appellant, keeping in view the judgments of the Apex Court reported in the case of Susamma Thomas reported in 1994 (2) SCC 176 (G. M., Kerala S.R.T.C. vs. Susamma Thomas) and in the case of Trilok Chandra, reported in 1996 (4) SCC 362 (U.P. S.R.T.C. vs. Trilok Chandra), the choice of multiplier is required to be determined not only on the basis of age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) but also by the calculation as to what actual sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the annual dependency by way of annual interest. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the correct multiplier in this case should be 10. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Tribunal has selected a suitable multiplier of 17 on the basis of age of the deceased and that is permissible as judgment in the case of Trilok Chandra (supra) which has approved the Devies formula and has also relied upon second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended by Amendment Act 54 of 1994. As per the schedule the maximum multiplier can be upto 18 and not 16 as was held in Susamma Thomas case. 6. In the case of Trilok Chandra (supra) the Supreme Court in paragraph 12 of the judgment quoted with approval the relevant observation of the Apex Court in the case of Susamma Thomas which includes a reference to the interest theory in case of compensation being kept in a fixed deposit. Further in paragraph 18, the Apex Court clarified, after pointing out some calculation in the schedule, that neither the Tribunals nor the Courts can go by the ready reckoner and the same can only be used as a guide. 7. It was further clarified that the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependant on the age of the deceased. In facts also in that case the Apex Court only emphasised the proposition that the multiplier cannot exceed 18 years purchase factor. Thus, the maximum multiplier, as per law laid down in the case of Trilok Chandra can be 18 but the minimum multiplier will depend upon other relevant considerations which as per judgment in Susamma Thomas case will include interest potential of the product i.e. the compensation amount if the same is kept in a fixed deposit in a bank or in any stable financial institution. 8. Thus, in my view, the learned Tribunal failed to keep in view one of the relevant considerations in mind for chosing the correct multiplier in this case. The interest factor as a relevant consideration has been followed by this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Ms. Kanak Paul [ 1996 (1) BLJR 473 ] and the said judgment of the learned single Judge was approved by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in 1996 (2) BLJR 1242 . The interest factor as a relevant consideration has been followed by this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Ms. Kanak Paul [ 1996 (1) BLJR 473 ] and the said judgment of the learned single Judge was approved by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in 1996 (2) BLJR 1242 . The same view has been reiterated recently in the case of National Insurance Company vs. Kumari Anupma [1999 (1) PLJR 873]. Thus, the settled law appears to be that the multiplier method should be applied and in applying the same, the correct multiplier should be found out in such a manner that compensation amount calculated in money value should be such which if invested in fixed deposit in bank or other financial institution may fetch to the dependants the amount of dependency available to them from the annual income of the deceased. Such a method will be just for both the parties because it is well recognised since long that a death in an accident, though always a sad event should not occasion a bonanza to the dependants of the deceased by way of compensation. 9. Thus, in my view, the contention on behalf of the appellant has force and is fit to be accepted for the reasons mentioned above. In the facts of the case, in my view, the correct multiplier should be 10. If the annual dependency of Rs. 17,280/- is multiplied by 10, the result will be Rs. 1,72,800/-. The funeral expense of Rs. 2000/-, the loss of consortium at Rs. 5000/- and the loss of estate at Rs. 2500/-, as allowed by the learned Tribunal, should be added to the aforesaid amount and that will make the total compensation payable to the claimants as Rs. 1,82,300/-. Since out of that Rs. 50,000/- has already been paid under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, hence the net payable compensation now will be Rs. 1,32,300/-. 10. Accordingly, the judgment and award under appeal are modified and it is held that the net compensation now payable to the claimants respondents will be Rs. 1,32,300/-. The statutory amount deposited for the purpose of appeal is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondents and the balance amount should be paid by the appellant Insurance Company to the claimants- respondents within a period of two months. 1,32,300/-. The statutory amount deposited for the purpose of appeal is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondents and the balance amount should be paid by the appellant Insurance Company to the claimants- respondents within a period of two months. It is made clear that the total compensation shall be paid within the aforesaid time along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition till the date of payment. 11. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above but there shall be no order as to costs.