R. K. PATRA, J. ( 1 ) THE aforesaid two appeals filed at the instance of the insurance company are directed against the common judgment dated 6-10-1993 passed in Misc. Case Nos. 637 and 640 of 1990 by the 3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puri (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' ). Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 is the elder sister of respondent No. 1. Both of them through their maternal grandfather filed Misc. Case Nos. 637 of 1990 and 640 of 1990 claiming compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- for the death of their father and Rs. 2,00,000/- for the death of their mother. The Tribunal by the impugned order granted compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/- in the first case and Rs. 1,20,000/- in the second case. ( 3 ) FACTS :on 12-5-1990 at about 4 p. m. while Dr. Narasingh Mishra and Smt. Renubala Mishra, the parents of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, were going in a scooter, a Mini Truck bearing registration number ORX 4370 came from behind and dashed against them near Khadia Sankha on the National Highway No. 6 between Khurda and Bhbaneswar. Both of them died at the spot instantaneously. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were respectively aged ab out 6 and 8 years by the time of the accident. Because of the tragic road accident, they have become orphans. The owner of the vehicle despite service of notice on him did not appear nor did he file any written statement. The appellants appeared and filed written statement contending that deceased Dr. Narasingh Mishra was rash and negligent in driving the scooter with two pillion riders and, therefore, no liability can be fastened on it. The Tribunal held that the driver of the offending vehicle was cent per cent rash, negligent and careless on account of which the accident took place. With regard to the question of compensation, it found that Dr. Narasingh Mishra was at the time of accident working as an Assistant Professor in the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore whose total emolument was Rs. 5140/- per month. He was aged about 33 years at that time and had he not died, he would have continued in service with all service benefits for another 25 years. The Tribunal assumed that the deceased might have been contributing Rs. 5140/- per month. He was aged about 33 years at that time and had he not died, he would have continued in service with all service benefits for another 25 years. The Tribunal assumed that the deceased might have been contributing Rs. 3000/- per month towards the maintenance of his family. Accordingly, by applying the multiplier of 25, it assessed the total compensation at Rs. 9. 00 lacs (Rs. 3000 x 12 x 25 ). Since the respondents 1 and 2 also lost their mother in the accident, the Tribunal fixed compensation at Rs. 1,20,000/- on the count of loss of life, affection, parental care, guidance and company. ( 4 ) LET me now proceed to examine if the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just or not. On behalf of the respondents two witnesses were examined. P. W. 1 is their maternal grandfather. He filed a number of documents. P. W. 2 is a witness to the accident. Ext. 11 is the service record of the deceased-Dr. Narsingh Mishra wherein his date of birth was recorded as 22-6-1957. He was thus aged about 33 years by the time of his death. His service record further reveals that he was an Assistant Professor in Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore. In 1978 the deceased passed B. Sc. in the First Class and was also a Gold Medalist. In 1980 he passed M. Tech. In 1987 he got Ph. D. Ext. 12 is the service particulars furnished by his employer-Indian Institute of Management. It shows that the scale of pay of Assistant Professor was Rs. 3700-5700/- and the last gross emolument drawn by him was Rs. 5130/ -. It has been further mentioned in the said document (Ext. 12) that the deceased had reasonably good chance of being promoted as Associate Professor (scale of pay Rs. 4500-150-5700-200-6300) after five years of service by about 1994 and Professor (scale of pay Rs. 5100-150-5700-200-7300) after about another five years, i. e. by 1999. It was also indicated herein that he would have attained the age of superannuation i. e. 60 years by 2017. From the aforesaid biodata it can safely be concluded that he would have continued in service for another 27 years with all service benefits. 5100-150-5700-200-7300) after about another five years, i. e. by 1999. It was also indicated herein that he would have attained the age of superannuation i. e. 60 years by 2017. From the aforesaid biodata it can safely be concluded that he would have continued in service for another 27 years with all service benefits. ( 5 ) THE only point urged by the counsel for the appellant is that the multiplier of 25 applied by the Tribunal for grant of compensation is not correct and it should at best be 18 or 16. Shri Padhi relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarala Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, AIR 1996 SC 1274 , contended that the compensation granted in both the claim cases is on a lower side and if the formulae adopted by their Lordships in Sarala Dixit (supra) is extended to the present case, the compensation would be more than Rs. 16. 00 lacs. ( 6 ) IN view of the rival contentions, let me examine the principle adopted by their Lordships in Sarala Dixit (supra) in fixing compensation. The deceased in that case had been promoted to the rank of Captain in the Indian Army at the time of accident. He was fully qualified for promotion to the rank of Major. His gross salary at the time of his death was Rs. 1543/- per month (rounded to Rs. 1500/- ). Keeping in view the future prospects as well as imponderables like accidental death while discharging military duty, reasonably his gross monthly income could have shot up at least double than what he was earning at the time of his death, i. e. up to Rs. 3000/- per month had he survived in life and successfully completed his future military career till the time of superannuation. The average gross future monthly income was determined by adding the actual gross income at the time of death, i. e. Rs. 1500/- per month with the maximum income which he would have otherwise got, i. e. Rs. 3000/- per month divisible by 2, i. e. Rs. 2250/- per month. From this gross monthly income further 1/3rd was deducted by way of his personal expenses and other liabilities which came to Rs. 750/- per month. This amount of Rs. 750/- was further deducted from the average gross earning of Rs. 2250/- per month which came to Rs. 3000/- per month divisible by 2, i. e. Rs. 2250/- per month. From this gross monthly income further 1/3rd was deducted by way of his personal expenses and other liabilities which came to Rs. 750/- per month. This amount of Rs. 750/- was further deducted from the average gross earning of Rs. 2250/- per month which came to Rs. 1500/- per month, i. e. Rs. 18,000/- per year. On this amount multiplier of 15 was applied and the total amount was arrived at Rs. 2,70,000/ -. To this amount, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was added by way of loss of his estate and consortium which came to Rs. 2,85,000/ -. ( 7 ) THE service career of the deceased in Sarala Dixit's case (supra) is similar to that of the deceased-Dr. Narasingh Misra. Now applying the aforesaid formula, it may be seen that the gross monthly income of the deceased-Dr. Narasingh Misra was Rs. 5130/- at the time of the accident which can be rounded to Rs. 5000/ -. In view of his academic record and service particulars, his gross monthly income would have definitely gone up double which would come to Rs. 10,000/- had he survived in life and successfully completed his future service career till the time of superannuation. His average gross future monthly income can be determined by adding his actual gross monthly income at the time of his death, i. e. Rs. 5000/- to the maximum divisible by 2, i. e. Rs. 5000/- plus Rs. 10,000/- i. e. Rs. 15,000/- divided by 2 = Rs. 15,000/- divided by 2 = Rs. 7500/- per month. From this gross monthly income if 1/3rd is deducted towards his personal expenses, it would come to Rs. 2500/- per month. After deducting this amount from his average gross monthly income it would be Rs. 7500 - 2500) Rs. 5000/- per month, i. e. Rs. 60,000/- per year. By multiplying this amount by the multiplicand of 15, the total amount would come to Rs. 9,00,000/ -. To this, if the conventional figure of Rs. 15,000/- would be added by way of loss of estate and consortium, the total figure would come to Rs. 9,15,000/ -. So, by applying the aforesaid formula the total amount of compensation now comes to Rs. 9,15,000/- which is practically the same as that of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. To this, if the conventional figure of Rs. 15,000/- would be added by way of loss of estate and consortium, the total figure would come to Rs. 9,15,000/ -. So, by applying the aforesaid formula the total amount of compensation now comes to Rs. 9,15,000/- which is practically the same as that of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. On due consideration of the materials on record, I am of the opinion that the compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/- granted by the Tribunal is just and proper and the same is hereby upheld. ( 8 ) NOW coming to the grant of compensation on account of death of the respondent's mother, it appears that she was aged about 25 years at the time of her death. As ill luck would have it, the respondents lost their mother when they were minors. Therefore, the grant of compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- towards loss of life, affection, care, guidance and companion cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in both the appeals which are hereby dismissed with costs. Appeals dismissed.