JUDGMENT Ms. Kamlesh Sharma, J.—These two appeals and cross objections (FAO (MVA) No. 99 of 1995 a/w CO. No. 95 of 1996 and FAO.(MVA) No. 101 of 1995) are being disposed of by a common judgment as these arise out of the same accident. The appellants in both the appeals are Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (hereinafter called the Board) and its Executive Engineer. 2. In FAO (MVA) No. 95 of 1995 the appellants are aggrieved by the award dated 23.12.1994 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur whereby an amount of Rs. 1,61,000, alongwith interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of deposit and costs of Rs. 330, was awarded to respondent Biplesh Kumar as compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the accident of Truck No. HIS 9030 owned by the Board. The respondent-claimant has also filed cross-objections praying for the enhancement of the amount of compensation. 3. Similarly, in FAO (MVA) No. 101 of 1995 the appellants are aggrieved by award dated 23.12.1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur whereby an amount of Rs. 2,16,000 as compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment and costs of Rs. 330 was awarded to the respondents claimants for the death of their son Ritesh Kumar in the same accident of Truck No. HIS 9030 owned by the Board. 4. It is not in dispute that on 29.6.1989 deceased Ritesh Kumar was travelling on Motor Cycle No. HPB 390 being driven by Biplesh Kumar from Bilaspur College to Diara Sector when Truck No. HIS 9030 being driven by its driver respondent Jang Bahadur Singh came from the opposite direction and hit the Motor Cycle as a result of which both deceased Ritesh Kumar and Biplesh Kumar had received injuries and were removed to the District Hospital, Bilaspur by PW Madan Lal Bhardwaj. Deceased Ritesh Kumar had succumbed to his injuries, whereas, Biplesh Kumar suffered permanent disability of 45% due to loss of vision of right eye. On the basis of evidence on record the Tribunal has held that the accident in .question was caused by the negligence of the driver of the truck in which Ritesh Kumar had lost his life and Biplesh Kumar received injuries. On the basis of evidence on record the Tribunal has held that the accident in .question was caused by the negligence of the driver of the truck in which Ritesh Kumar had lost his life and Biplesh Kumar received injuries. It is not in dispute that at the time of the accident deceased Ritesh Kumar as well as respondent Biplesh Kumar were about 18 years of age and were students. Ritesh Kumar was studying in 10+i, whereas Biplesh Kumar was studying in B.A. Part I. In the case of deceased Ritesh Kumar the Tribunal has presumed that he would have atleast earned the wages of an ordinary labourer and his monthly income would have been Rs. 1,500 per month, out of which l/3rd i.e. Rs. 500 he would have spent on himself and the remaining 2/3rd i.e. Rs. 1,000 on his family. Accordingly, the loss to the family is assessed at Rs. 1,000 per month and Rs. 12,000 per year, to which multiplier of 18 is applied and the total compensation of Rs. 2,16,000 is awarded. 5. Similarly, in the case of Biplesh Kumar the monthly income is assessed at Rs. 1,200 and the loss of future income as a result of permanent disability of 45% at Rs. 600 per month, to which multiplier of 18 is applied and compensation for loss of income is determined at Rs. 1,29,600. For pain and sufferings, loss of matrimonial prospectus and enjoyment of life, an amount of Rs. 31,400 is awarded. Accordingly an amount of Rs. 1,61,000 has been awarded as total compensation. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has though made an attempt to assail the findings of the Tribunal on negligence but has failed. The Tribunal has correctly read and assessed the evidence on record to come to the conclusion that from the evidence of eye witness B.S. Verma and PW Madan Lal Bhardwaj, who reached on the spot immediately after the occurrence and took the injured to the hospital, and that of respondent Jang Bahadur Singh, the driver of the Truck, it is proved that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Truck Jang Bahadur Singh, who had entered the National Highway from the link road without giving signal and was on the wrong side. His defence that the motorcyclist was driving in a very rash and negligent manner, as result of which he could not control his vehicle and the Motor Cycle struck against his truck was not found trustworthy, as this plea was not specifically taken in the written statement filed by him. We do not find any reason to interfere with these findings. 7. Now we will examine the submission made by learned Counsel for the appellants that the compensation awarded to the claimants is on the higher side and also that of the learned Counsel for the claimants that it is on the lower side and not just and proper. In the case of claimant Biplesh Kumar, from his own statement and the statements of Doctor J.P. Nadha PW-4, Doctor Bhupinder Chauhan PW-6 and Doctor P.S. Dogra PW-7, it is proved on record that he remained admitted in District Hospital, Bilaspur from 29.6.1989 to 5.7.1989 and thereafter in P.Q.I., Chandigarh for about a month. As per the evidence of the Doctors, Biplesh Kumar was examined by a Board of Doctors on 21.5.1993 and medical certificate Ex. PA was issued in his favour certifying that he had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 45% due to post traumatic retinal detachment with right side orbital depression. The extent of disability had been assessed due to total loss of vision in the right eye, which cannot be cured by any treatment. Doctor P.S. Dogra PW-7 has also stated that he is not fit for doing jobs requiring precise vision. On the basis of the evidence on record it cannot be disputed that claimant Biplesh Kumar, who is a son of retired college Lecturer and was studing in B.A. Part I at the time of the accident, would have continued his studies and would have got minimum Class III job had he not suffered injuries in the accident in question as a result of which he has become permanently disabled to the extent of 45%. Therefore, the income of Rs. 1,200 per month assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. It should have been the salary of a Class III Employee, which was about Rs. 1,800 in the year of the accident i.e. 1989. Accordingly, the approximate loss of income keeping in view the disability of 45% comes to about Rs. 800 per month and Rs. 9,500 per year. 8. It should have been the salary of a Class III Employee, which was about Rs. 1,800 in the year of the accident i.e. 1989. Accordingly, the approximate loss of income keeping in view the disability of 45% comes to about Rs. 800 per month and Rs. 9,500 per year. 8. So far deceased Ritesh Kumar is concerned, he was also 18 years of age and studying in 10+1. He was from the family of the Pujaries of Naina Devi Ji Temple and his father was a shopkeeper at Naina Devi. Therefore, looking to his family background he would have earned an amount of Rs. 1,800 per month either having been employed as Class III employee or by joining the business of his father, out of which he would have spent l/3rd on himself and 2/ 3rd on his family. Therefore, loss to the family comes to Rs. 1,200 per month and Rs. 14,400 per year. 9. In order to determine the correct multiplier, we would examine the case law cited by the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the appellants has referred to the judgment of Bombay High Court in Anand Rarnkrishna Raikar and others v. Raghunath V. Keny and others, 1995 (1) TAC 484 (Bom), in which for a student of 21 years old, studying in 12th standard, who was helping his father in making golden ornaments, a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 was awarded. He has also referred to another judgment of the Bombay. High Court in Chandrakalabai and others v. Dhuyaneshwar and others, 1995 (2) TAC 456 (Bom.), in which compensation of Rs. 50,000 was awarded for the death of a boy of 18 years studying in 10th standard. The accident in this case had taken place in the year 1983. 10. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the claimants has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Tribandrumv. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, AIR 1994 SC 1631, in which it is held in para 11:- "......The mutiplier represents the number of years purchase on which the loss of dependency is capitalised. Take for instance a case where annual loss of dependency is Rs. 10,000. If a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 is invested at 10% annual interest, the interest will take care of the dependency, perpetually. The multiplier in this case works out to 10. Take for instance a case where annual loss of dependency is Rs. 10,000. If a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 is invested at 10% annual interest, the interest will take care of the dependency, perpetually. The multiplier in this case works out to 10. If the rate of interest is 5% per annum and not 10% then the multiplier needed to capitalise the loss of the annual dependency at Rupees 10,000 would be 20. Then the multiplier i.e., the number of years purchase of 20 will yield the annual dependency perpetually. Then allowance to scale down the multiplier would have to be made taking into account the uncertainties of the future, the allowances for immediate lump sum payment, the period over which the dependency is to last being shorter and the capital feed also to be spent away over the period of dependency is to last etc. Usually in English Courts the operative multiplier rarely exceeds 16 as maximum. This will come down accordingly at the age of the deceased person (or that of the dependants, whichever is higher) goes up." In the case before the Supreme Court the age of the deceased was 38 years and his income was Rs. 1032 per month. Taking into view the prospects of advancement of life and career, the multiplicand was enhanced to Rs. 1,400 per month and Rs. 17,000 per year, to which multiplier of 12 was applied and after adding the amount of consortium, an amount of Rs. 2,25,000 was held as just, fair and reasonable compensation. While determining this amount it was pointed out that the choice of the multiplier is determined by two factors, namely, rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy and the age of the deceased or of the claimant whichever is higher. 11. The learned Counsel has cited another judgment of the Supreme Court in Shanti Bai and others v. Charan Singh and others, AIR 1999 SC 845, in which the accident had taken place in the year 1991 and the deceased was 18 years of age and belonged to a labour class. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had awarded the compensation of Rs. 40,000, which was maintained by the High Court but the Supreme Court has enhanced it to Rs. 1,50,000. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had awarded the compensation of Rs. 40,000, which was maintained by the High Court but the Supreme Court has enhanced it to Rs. 1,50,000. In another recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Kader Kunju and another v. Maheshwaran Pada Nair and others, 2000 ACJ 524, multiplier, of 16 has been applied keeping in view the age of deceased as 17 years and age of his parents 47 years (father) and 45 years (mother). 12. Applying the ratio of the judgments referred to hereinabove, for the age of 18 years of the deceased and the injured, the multiplier of 16 is just and reasonable. In the case of Biplesh Kumar, applying the multiplier of 16 the total loss of income comes to Rs. 1,53,600. The amount of Rs. 31,000 for pain and sufferings and loss of matrimonial prospects and enjoyment of life is also on the lower side. It is enhanced to Rs. 46,400 to make the total amount of compensation as Rs. 2,00,000, to which the respondent-claimant is entitled. The appeal (FAO (MVA) No. 99 of 1995) is rejected, whereas the cross objections (CO. No. 95 of 1996) are accepted and the impugned award is modified accordingly. 13. In the case of Ritesh Kumar, applying the multiplier of 16 the total loss of income to the family comes to Rs. 2,30,400 but since the respondents-claimants have not filed any cross-objections, it will be restricted to Rs. 2,16,000 as awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal is rejected. 14. The claimants-respondents in both the appeals will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition to the date of payment, as awarded by the Tribunal. There is no order as to costs. Order accordingly.