Judgment :- C.M.A. Nos. 1297 and 1298 of 1994 could be disposed of in a common judgment since in both the claim petitions, common enquiry was conducted and common judgment was rendered. 2. Kattabomman Transport Corporation has filed these appeals challenging the award of Rs. 30,000/- to the injured and the award of Rs. 2,25,000/- to the dependants of the deceased, mainly on the ground of quantum. 3. On 21-5-90 at about 7.30 p.m., the deceased Paulkani was proceeding on his bicycle in Sivagiri-Rajapalayam main road on the extreme left side. One Periyasamy was also proceeding in the road by cycle along with his brother. At that point of time, the bus belonged to the appellant-Corporation, driven at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, hit against both Paulkani and Periyasamy. Both were taken to the Government Hospital, Rajapalayam wherein the said Paulkani died due to serious injuries sustained by him in the above accident. Periyasamy, who was initially treated in the Rajapalayam Government Hospital was referred to Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai for further treatment. 4. The claimants, the wife and children of the deceased, filed a claim petition in OP. No. 115/91 claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for death of the deceased. The injured, Periyasamy, filed OP. No. 22/91 claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him due to the accident. 5. In both these petitions, as agreed by the parties a common enquiry was conducted. 6. On behalf of the claimants, P.W.1, wife of me deceased, PW.2, injured Periyasamy, PW.3, Sundararajan, the Manager of the factory in which the deceased was working were examined. Exs. A1 to A7 were marked. 7. On behalf of the appellant-Corporation, R.W.1, the driver of the bus was examined. Though the driver of the bus, Tamilmani, was the first respondent in O.P. No. 22/91 in the claim petition filed by the injured, he did not choose to appear and remained ex parte . However, the counter was filed by the appellant-Corporation in both the claim petitions stating that the driver was not negligent. 8. The Tribunal, after enquiry, concluded that the driver of the bus was negligent and the injured would be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 30,000/- as against the total compensation of Rs. 1 lakh claimed and the claimants, dependants of the deceased, would be entitled to Rs. 8. The Tribunal, after enquiry, concluded that the driver of the bus was negligent and the injured would be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 30,000/- as against the total compensation of Rs. 1 lakh claimed and the claimants, dependants of the deceased, would be entitled to Rs. 2,25,000/- as against the total compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. 9. In these appeals, the counsel for the appellant would mainly argue on the aspect of quantum. Though there was no serious challenge for the quantum of Rs. 30,000/- awarded to the injured, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the award of Rs. 2,25,000/- payable to the claimants, dependants of the deceased, is highly excessive and the assessment made for fixing the amount of compensation is without any basis. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents in both these appeals would argue that the Tribunal is perfectly correct in fixing the quantum of compensation payable to the respondents. 11. As indicated above, since there is no serious challenge on the quantum awarded on the compensation, namely, Rs. 30, 000/- it is unnecessary to refer about the reasonings given by the Tribunal for fixing the amount as compensation payable to the injured. But, the quantum fixed for the claimants, the dependants of the deceased, according to the counsel for the appellant, was not in accordance with the guidelines given by the Apex Court over the manner of assessment for fixing the damages. 12. The Tribunal fixed the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs. 1,000/-, But, instead of adopting the multiplier theory, the Tribunal would simply say that the deceased, aged about 28 years, would have lived for further 29 years and as such, the dependants of the deceased, namely, the first claimant, wife of the deceased, who lost her marital life would be entitled to Rs. 75,000/- and minor children, claimants 2 to 4, would be entitled to Rs. 50.000/- each, and the Tribunal worked out Rs. 2.25.000/- as total compensation. 13. In my view, the above calculation, on the basis of longevity theory without giving any details as to how the assessment has been made, could not be said to be the proper approach. But however, it is appropriate that in a fatal case, the Court has to take overa picture to assess the loss suffered as best as it can. 14. But however, it is appropriate that in a fatal case, the Court has to take overa picture to assess the loss suffered as best as it can. 14. As laid down by the Apex Court in the decision reported in 1994 ACJ 1 ( General Manager. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas and others ), the manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure, arid to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years purchase. 15. Though there were two methods adopted for determination and for calculation of compensation in fatal accident cases, the best method could be adopting the multiplier theory which is logically sound and legally well established. 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. According to the Apex Court, the method of determining the compensation on the basis of aggregating the entire future earnings for over the period of life expectancy and deducting the percentage therefrom towards uncertainties of future life and awarding the resulting sum as compensation, is clearly unscientific. 16. In the light of the ruling of the Apex Court, the method of calculation adopted by the Tribunal is wrong. But, on the whole, this Court has to take into consideration the several circumstances in order to find out whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal was “just”. 17. As pointed out by the counsel for respondents, the Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 1996 SC. 1274 = 1996-2-L.W. 9 ( Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav ) would observe that while adopting the multiplier theory, the future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand. 17. As pointed out by the counsel for respondents, the Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 1996 SC. 1274 = 1996-2-L.W. 9 ( Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav ) would observe that while adopting the multiplier theory, the future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand. The ascertainment of the multiplicand is the more difficult exercise, in as much as, there are many factors which have to be put into the scales to evaluate the contingencies of the future. The Supreme Court would further observe that when fixing the monthly dependency, the Courts have to keep in view the future prospects also. 18. In the light of the above observation, we have to see whether the total amount of compensation awarded to the claimants, the dependants of the deceased, would be the adequate compensation. 19. There is no dispute that the deceased was the only bread-winner in the family. He met with an accident and died in the prime period of the life, at the age of 28. PW.3, the Manager of the factory, would state that the deceased was the permanent employee drawing a salary of more than Rs. 1,000/-. Therefore, there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that he had a large number of service ahead of him which would have certainly taken him to a position wherein he would be able to get more amount. In the light of the future prospects, it is appropriate to fix the monthly dependency at Rs. 900/-. 20. The maximum multiplier is 18. Therefore, the total amount comes to Rs. 1,94,400/-. The age of the wife of the deceased, first claimant, at the time of death of the deceased, was 22 years. The other minor children, second claimant-son Raju was six years old, third claimant-daughter Thenammal was two years old, and fourth claimant-Vetri Selvi, the baby at the arms of 4 months. So, in view of the age of the claimants, it should be appropriate to award Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium, loss of love and affection would be fixed at Rs. 10,000/- to all the three children and Rs. 10,000/- towards the loss of pain and suffering to all the claimants. The total amount of compensation is thus arrived at 2,24,400/- and rounded off to Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium, loss of love and affection would be fixed at Rs. 10,000/- to all the three children and Rs. 10,000/- towards the loss of pain and suffering to all the claimants. The total amount of compensation is thus arrived at 2,24,400/- and rounded off to Rs. 2,25,000/-which is the very same figure awarded by the Tribunal. 21. In these circumstances, though the method of calculation made by the Tribunal is wrong, ultimately the total amount of compensation awarded is just and proper even when the proper method is applied as indicated above. 22. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to disturb the finding of the Tribunal regarding the quantum. 23. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. No costs.