ORDER 1. Feeling aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) whereunder an amount of Rs. 3,36,000/- had been determined to be payable as compensation in the proceedings initiated for the award of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 alongwith an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim till the realisation of the amount awarded as compensation, they have now come up in appeal seeking redress praying for the enhancement of the amount of compensation. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Counsels representing the contesting respondents, and have carefully perused the record. 3. The facts in brief, shorn of details, and necessary for the disposal of this appeal lie in a narrow compass : In an accident involving the offending motor vehicle (truck) registration No. M.B.H. 1088 and a scooter registration No. M.P. 06/ 0233 took place at 6.00 p.m., on 30.3.1992, Om Prakash Goyal who was driving his Bajaj Super Scooter carrying his nephew, Mukesh as a pillion rider suffered grievous injuries which resulted in his death within half an hour of the accident. The pillion rider also died on the spot. The claimants include the wife of the deceased. Om Prakash, aged about 32 years, one daughter aged about 15 years and three minor sons aged about between 9 to 13 years and his mother aged about 65 years. The aforesaid legal representatives of the deceased, Om Prakash who was aged about 38 years at the time of his death had moved an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming an amount of Rs. 11,98,000/- towards the compensation. 4. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence and the materials brought on record came to the conclusion that the pending motor vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently and had caused the accident resulting in the death of Om Prakash as well as Mukesh. No negligence was found on the part of the deceased. Om Prakash who was driving the scooter. No negligence was found on the part of the deceased. Om Prakash who was driving the scooter. The findings of the Tribunal on this question involved in issue No. 1(ka) and l(kha) which where returned in favour of the claimants had already been affirmed by this Court in its decision in the case of Murarilal and Anr. v. Raghuraj Singh and Ors. M.A. No. 185/96 filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Mukesh, the pillion rider which had been disposed of vide the judgment/order of the Division Bench dated 23.1.1999. 5. The Tribunal in its impugned award so far as the deceased Om Prakash was concerned had come to the conclusion that his financial position was good and he had a good earning. The extent of the dependency was found by the Tribunal to be Rs. 24,000/- per annum. Taking the amount of Rs. 24000/- per annum to be the loss of dependency, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 14 for finding put the just compensation and accordingly fixed the amount towards the compensation to be Rs. 3,36,000/-. It was further observed that since the multiplier principle for determining the amount of compensation was being adopted, the claimants could not be held entitled to any amount towards the funeral expenses or loss Of consortium or mental or physical suffering. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellants has strenuously urged that the Tribunal has acted with manifest illegality in applying the multiplier of 14. for determining the amount of compensation inasmuch as even taking into account the provision contained in 163-A of the Act and the second Schedule referred to therein, there could be no justification for not applying the multiplier of 16 for determining the amount of compensation, It has further been urged that the provision contained in the Second Schedule referred to in Section 163-A of the Act clearly indicated that in addition to the compensation determined by taking recourse to the multiplier method, the claimants will be entitled to Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards the loss of consortium if the beneficiary was the spouse and Rs. 2,500/-towards the loss of estate. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is urged that there could be no justification for depriving the claimants of the additional amount which was payable by applying the multiplier of 16 and the additional amounts on the aforesaid counts. 8. 5,000/- towards the loss of consortium if the beneficiary was the spouse and Rs. 2,500/-towards the loss of estate. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is urged that there could be no justification for depriving the claimants of the additional amount which was payable by applying the multiplier of 16 and the additional amounts on the aforesaid counts. 8. For assessing the pecuniary loss caused to the dependents by the death of the person concerned, while calculating the "just" compensation, the annual dependency of the dependents should be determined in terms of the annual loss accruing to them due to the abrupt termination of life and for this purpose, the annual earning of the deceased at the time of accident and the amount out of the same which he was spending towards the maintenance of the dependents will be the determining factor and this basic figure has to be multiplied by a suitable multiplier. 9. However, while considering the number of years of dependency of the various dependents, the number of years by which the life of the deceased was cut short and the various imponderable circumstances such as early natural death of the deceased, his becoming incapable of supporting the dependents due to illness or other natural handicap or calamities, the prospects of the re-marriage of the widow, the coming up of the age of the dependents on their developing, their independent sources of income, etc. The multiplier is therefore to be chosen having regard to the peculiar facts of each case. For instance, if it is found that the deceased had died prematurely at a very young age and it is further revealed that the longevity of his family was more then it would be safe to take a higher multiplier with a view to arrive at a figure of total compensation. 10. The choice of multiplier obviously, therefore, has to be made by the Court using its own experience and having due regard to the peculiar facts of each case because the ultimate object is not to adhere to any rigid formula but to award a compensation which is just. In this approach, the Courts have to remain sympathetic and realistic in their consideration because every assessment of compensation rests more or less on the conjectures, it being not possible to know the ways of providence. In this approach, the Courts have to remain sympathetic and realistic in their consideration because every assessment of compensation rests more or less on the conjectures, it being not possible to know the ways of providence. Under the circumstances, what is required to be assessed has to be based on reasonable probabilities as it appeals to a reasonable person. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in its decision in the case of Smt. Goka Bai and Ors. v. Keshav Singh and Anr. M.A. No. 25 of 1999 decided on 23.9.1999 had clearly indicated that the provisions contained in Section 163-A of the Act read with the Second Schedule referred to thereunder had to be taken as providing only a suitable guide to enable the Tribunal to determine a "just" compensation noticing the observations made by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Trilok Chandra and Ors. wherein it had been emphasised that it must be realised that the Tribunal/Court has to determine a fair amount of compensation awardable to the victim of an accident which must be proportionate to the injury caused. Noticing the implications arising under the provisions contained in Sections 163-A and 163-B of the Act, it was pointed out in the aforesaid case that the calculations of compensation and the amounts worked out in the Schedule suffer from several defects. In fact, what had been pointed out by the Apex Court was that the table abounds in various mistakes. Neither the Tribunals nor the Courts can go by the ready reckoner and it can only be used as a guide. 12. It may further be noticed that in case the annual financial dependency of the dependents of the deceased is determined and the same is multiplied with the remaining years of normal life expectancy of the deceased that is the number of years by which the life of the deceased had been cut short, the. amount would invariably be a large amount and, therefore, in view of the lump sum payment which would require a reduction approximately 20 to 30% leaving the discretion with the Court as to what extent the figure would be reduced. amount would invariably be a large amount and, therefore, in view of the lump sum payment which would require a reduction approximately 20 to 30% leaving the discretion with the Court as to what extent the figure would be reduced. But the other method to determine the amount of compensation is by ascertaining the net pecuniary loss to the dependents of the deceased is calculated on an annual basis and this figure of annual dependency is multiplied by a suitable multiplier of certain number of years' purchase. This method has come to be known as the multiplier method and has been granted a statutory recognition by inserting Section 163-A of the Act with the Amendment Act No. 54 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.1994. 13. In the present case although the claimants had disclosed the age of the deceased, Om Prakash to be 38 years at the time of his death, the post-mortem report indicated him to be aged about 35 years only. However, in the partnership agreement dated 20.10.1983, Om Prakash himself had disclosed his age to be about 30 years. In the circumstances, therefore, the age of the deceased, Om Prakash at the time of his death could be safely taken to be 38 years. 14. In the claim petition, the longevity in the family of the deceased was asserted to be of 85 years of age. The wife of the deceased had deposed that the father of the deceased died at the age of 75 years. The age of his mother who is still alive was disclosed in the claim petition to be 65 years. She had stated that the deceased, Om Prakash was a partner in a firm which deals with the manufacturing of utensils and was also running a shop. His annual income was disclosed to be Rs. 24,500/- from the firm, Ram Metal Industries and Rs. 11,000/- per annum from the utensils shop. He was also disclosed to be an income-tax payer. 15. As has already been noticed hereinabove, the deceased had left behind his widow aged about 32 years, one daughter aged about 15 years, one son aged about 13 years, the other aged about 11 years and the third one aged about 9 years. He had also left behind his mother aged about 65 years; All these persons were absolutely dependent upon him. 16. He had also left behind his mother aged about 65 years; All these persons were absolutely dependent upon him. 16. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that selection of the multiplier 16' instead of 14' for calculation of the amount of "just" compensation would have met the interest of justice. 17. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances as brought on record, the Tribunal had clearly erred in applying the multiplier of 14 and, instead the multiplier of 16' ought to have been applied. 18. So far as the claim in regard to the award of the amount of compensation towards the funeral expenses, loss of consortium and the less of estate is concerned, it may be noticed that the second schedule referred to in Section 163-A of the Act itself clearly indicates that the amounts specified as payable On these counts is in addition to the amount of compensation for the loss of dependency. While it is true that the amount of compensation for the loss of dependency is to be paid in jump sum, it could not justify any deduction as there are many other counter-balancing factors such as the omission of taking into account any future increase of income, the rising prices, inflation due to fall in the value of the rupee, etc. 19. While it is true that the capitalised value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of the family of the deceased through his death, the capitalised value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. If the claimants under both the heads are the same, and if they get compensation for the entire loss caused to the estate, they cannot claim again under the head of personal loss the capitalised income that might have been spent on them if the deceased was alive. This was so clarified by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Gobald Motor Service Ltd. and Anr. v. R.M.K. Veluswami and Ors. This was so clarified by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Gobald Motor Service Ltd. and Anr. v. R.M.K. Veluswami and Ors. pointing out that a person cannot be permitted to recover twice over for the same loss and the duplication of the same claim, that is, if any part of the compensation representing the loss to the estate goes into the calculation of the personal loss, that portion has to be excluded. 20. In the present case, however, with the insertion of the statutory provision contained in Section 163-A of the Act, there could be no escape from the conclusion that the legislative policy and the legislative intent is not to deprive the claimants of the additional amount specified as payable on the aforesaid counts. 21. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that in face of the clear-cut provision contained in Section 163-A of the Act, it was not open to the Tribunal to deprive the claimants of the additional amounts as specified thereunder to be payable to the claimants on the aforesaid counts. 22. In view of our conclusions indicated hereinabove, this appeal succeeds in part with a direction to the Tribunal to calculate the amount of compensation applying the multiplier of 16' instead of 14' and add to the amount so ascertained, an amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards the funeral expenses, an amount of Rs. 5,000/-towards the loss of consortium and an amount of Rs. 2,500/- towards the loss of estate. 23. The amount of compensation shall stand enhanced in the terms of what has been indicated hereinabove maintaining the remaining part of the impugned award which shall stand modified accordingly. 24. The appellants shall be entitled to their costs.