Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. These two appeals have been filed against the judgment and award dated 11th December, 96 passed by the First Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 234/83, whereby he was awarded compensation of Rs. 3,00 lacs with interest @ 12% per annum on account of death of one Vinay Prasad Choudhary in Motor Vehicle accident. Misc. Appeal No. 119/97(R) has been filed by the claimants-appellants challenging the quantum of compensation as being in the lower side while Misc. Appeal No. 100/97(R) has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award on various grounds. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The claimants appellants filed a claim application for the grant of compensation on account of the death of deceased Vinay Prasad Choudhary, aged 30 years. The claimants case is that on 11.7.83, the deceased was coming to his home on a scooter bearing registration No. BHV 3778. When he reached near Indra Chowk of Harmu Road, one truck bearing registration No. BHV 4551 came from the opposite side in a high speed and dashed the scooter, as a result of which the rear wheel of the truck crushed the deceased. The deceased immediately removed to the hospital where he was declared dead. The claimants case was that the deceased was in private service and was doing confectionery business and his monthly income was Rs. 8,000.00 per month. The claimants, therefore, claimed compensation of Rs. 15,00 lacs. The owner of the truck and the appellant-Insurance Company contested the claim by filing separate written statement. The factum of accident was not denied in the written statement but their defence was that the deceased himself was rash and negligent in driving the scooter and it was his fault as a result of which accident took place. They have also pleaded that claimants are not entitled to any compensation and in any case compensation claimed by the claimants are excessive and exorbitant. 3. The Claims Tribunal framed the following issues for decision: 1. Is the claim maintainable? 2. Has the death of deceased Vinay Prasad Choudhary been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck in question? 3. Are the claimants entitled to claim compensation if so, to which extent? 4. Who is liable to pay compensation? 5. 3. The Claims Tribunal framed the following issues for decision: 1. Is the claim maintainable? 2. Has the death of deceased Vinay Prasad Choudhary been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck in question? 3. Are the claimants entitled to claim compensation if so, to which extent? 4. Who is liable to pay compensation? 5. To what relief or reliefs, if any, claimants are entitled to? 4. So far as issue No. 2 is concerned, the Tribunal held that the driver of the truck was driving the truck rashly and negligently as a result of which accident took place and the deceased died of the accident. The Tribunal further decided issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants holding that the claim application is maintainable. While deciding issue No. 3 the Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence came to a finding that the claimants are entitled to compensation. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs. 5,40,000.00 but held that since the claimants originally claimed compensation at Rs. 3,00 lacs and after elapse of so many years the claimants amended the claim petition and claimed compensation of Rs. 15.00 lacs, the claimants are entitled for compensation amounting to Rs. 3.00 iacs only with interest pendente lite and future @ 12% per annum. The Tribunal further considered issue Nos. 4 and 5 and held that the compensation amount is payable by the appellant-Insurance Company. 5. I have heard Mr. A.K. Lal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants, Mr. Burnwal S. Lal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company and Mr. G.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the owner of the vehicle. 6. I will first deal with the Misc. Appeal No. 100/97(R) filed by the appellant-Insurance Company. 7. Mr. Burnwal S. Lal, assailed the impugned award as being illegal and contrary to the facts and evidence on record. Learned Counsel firstly submitted that the accident took place in the year 1983 and during that period the vehicle in question was insured covering liability to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/ Learned Counsel mainly contended that claim case was fixed for hearing on 17.6.96 but by interpolation the date was changed as 17.7.96. Learned Counsel firstly submitted that the accident took place in the year 1983 and during that period the vehicle in question was insured covering liability to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/ Learned Counsel mainly contended that claim case was fixed for hearing on 17.6.96 but by interpolation the date was changed as 17.7.96. It is contended that on 17.6.96, the appellants had filed the attendance along with a copy of the insurance policy and during course of argument before the Tribunal the insurance policy was referred but the Claims Tribunal illegally held that copy of insurance policy was not produced by the insurance company and in such circumstances, the Insurance Company will be held liable for payment of entire compensation. I do not find any force in the submission of the learned Counsel. From perusal of the lower Court records, it transpires that there is some overwriting in the order-sheet dated 6.6.96 but even assuming that some interpolation was done and the case was put up on 18.7.96 instead of 17.6.96, the appellant-Insurance Company appeared on various dates subsequently i.e. on 21.8.96, 3.9.96, 19.9.96, 5.12.96 and 11.12.96 but no objection was raised about interpolation nor the copy of the insurance policy was filed and proved to show that its liability was limited. Even in this appeal, no prayer has been made nor any application has been filed praying for adducing the copy of the insurance policy as an additional evidence. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to differ with the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the entire liability is of the Insurance Company for non-filing of the Insurance policy. Learned Counsel lastly submitted that operative part of the judgment and award, whereby the Tribunal held that appellant-Insurance Company will be held liable for payment of interest @ 18% per annum, if the award is not satisfied within four months, is not justified. I will discuss this point while considering the appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle. 8. Re : Misc. Appeal No. 119/97(R).-- Mr. A.K. Lal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants appellants, assailed the impugned judgment and award only on the question of quantum of compensation. Learned Counsel submitted that although in the original claim petition the claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 3.00 lacs but subsequently, the amendment petition was filed claiming compensation of Rs. 8. Re : Misc. Appeal No. 119/97(R).-- Mr. A.K. Lal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants appellants, assailed the impugned judgment and award only on the question of quantum of compensation. Learned Counsel submitted that although in the original claim petition the claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 3.00 lacs but subsequently, the amendment petition was filed claiming compensation of Rs. 15.00 lacs and the amendment petition was allowed by the Claims Tribunal. According to the learned Counsel, the Tribunal has, therefore, committed an error of law in holding that the claimants are entitled to compensation to the extent originally claimed and not the amount claimed subsequently by amending the claim petition. Learned Counsel further submitted that in any event, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,40,000.00 which has been assessed by the Claims Tribunal. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Burnwal S. Lal, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant. Learned Counsel further submitted that although amendment was made in the claim petition and the claimants claimed Rs. 15.00 lacs but the claimants failed to prove the alleged monthly earnings of the deceased. 10. From perusal of the judgment, it appears that the Claims Tribunal has gone into details the evidences adduced by the claimants on the income of the deceased and came to a finding that the monthly income of the deceased was not more than Rs. 3,000.00 per month. I do not find any reason to differ with the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal on the monthly income of the deceased. However, the Tribunal adopted a wrong procedure in making assessment of compensation. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the annual savings of the deceased while determining the compensation. In multiplier theory system, at first the basic figure regarding annual loss to the dependants should be worked out and the same should be capitalised into a lump sum by taking a certain numbers of years purchase. This system of determining quantum of compensation is more sound and equitable. In the instant case, as held by the Tribunal, the monthly earning of the deceased was about Rs. 3,000/ - and after deducting 1/3rd out of the monthly earnings, in my view, the monthly dependency comes to Rs. 2,000.00 i.e. annual dependency would be Rs. 24,000.00 . This system of determining quantum of compensation is more sound and equitable. In the instant case, as held by the Tribunal, the monthly earning of the deceased was about Rs. 3,000/ - and after deducting 1/3rd out of the monthly earnings, in my view, the monthly dependency comes to Rs. 2,000.00 i.e. annual dependency would be Rs. 24,000.00 . Taking the same year of purchase as taken by the Tribunal if the annual dependency is multiplied by 18 then Rs. 3,60,000.00 would be the reasonable compensation. The claimants appellants are, therefore, entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,60,000.00 . So far reasonings given by the Claims Tribunal that the claimants are not entitled to compensation more than the amount claimed in the original claim petition, in my opinion, the Claims Tribunal is not correct in coming to such conclusion. Admittedly, the claim petition was amended by specific order passed by the Tribunal and the amendment was not opposed by the respondents. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the claimants are not entitled to more compensation than originally claimed, if the claimants are able to prove the same. In my opinion, therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is to be increased from Rs. 3,00 lacs to Rs. 3,60,000.00 . So far as award of interest is concerned, I do not find any reason to reduce the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. However, the award is modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment of entire compensation. The award of 18% interest on the failure of Insurance Company to pay the compensation within four months is set aside. 11. In the result, both the appeals are allowed in part and the judgment and award are modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,60,000.00 together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment of entire compensation and the entire compensation amount is payable by the appellant-Insurance Company.