JUDGMENT 1. - These appeals arise out of one and same accident, common judgment and involve common facts, therefore, are decided by this common judgment. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case which are relevant and necessary for the decision of these appeals are that on 20.9.1991 at about 6.00 p.m. Gost Mohd., Devilal, Smt. Gulab, Prabhat Narain, Suresh Saxena, Kishan Lal, Jitendra Kumar and Vinod Kumar were travelling in a jeep bearing No. RJ-03/0070 from Partapur to Banswara. When the said jeep was plying in the area of village Koorpada, at that relevant time a bus bearing No. MIF/4516 was coming from opposite direction which was owned by appellant Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') and was driven by its driver respondent Dhanna Lal rashly and negligently, collided with the jeep. Due to this accident, Gost Mohd., Devi Lal, Smt. Gulab and Prabhat Narain succumbed to injuries and other person sustained injuries. 3. The legal representatives of the deceased persons and the injured persons filed their respective claim petitions claiming compensation before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). By the impugned common judgment and award dated 19.1.1995, the Tribunal awarded following compensation in favour of respective claimants and against the appellant Corporation. 4. In Motor Accident Claim Case No. 81/1991 filed by the legal representative of deceased Gost Mohd. the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- as compensation. 5. In Motor Accident Claim Case No. 82/1991 filed by the legal representatives of deceased Devilal the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- as compensation. 6. In Motor Accident Claim Cases No. 83/1991 and 2/1992 filed by the legal representatives of deceased Smt. Gulab, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. 7. In Motor Accident Claim Case No. 1/1992 filed by the legal representatives of deceased Prabhat Narain, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- as compensation. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the Corporation preferred separate appeals including aforestated. 9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment and award impugned and also the record of the Tribunal. 10. 3,20,000/- as compensation. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the Corporation preferred separate appeals including aforestated. 9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment and award impugned and also the record of the Tribunal. 10. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal fell in error in awarding compensation against the appellant Corporation because the said accident occurred due to collision of two vehicles and from the material on record, it is clear that at the relevant time, the deceased and injured persons were travelling in the aforesaid jeep and, therefore, owner, driver and insurance company of the jeep ought to have been held liable alongwith the appellants. It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. 11. Learned Counsel for the claimants submit that since the jeep driver was not at all negligent, therefore, no necessity arise for the claimants to file claim petitions against the driver, owner and insurer of the jeep. He further contended that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus owned by the appellant Corporation, therefore, the claimants rightly chose to file the claim petitions against the Corporation. 12. Learned Counsel for the claimants further contended that from the evidence available on record, the claimants succeeded in establishing before the Tribunal that the said accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus owned by the appellant Corporation. He also contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be too excessive. On the contrary, it is too low and for that the respondent-claimants are seeking enhancement in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 246/1995. 13. In the instant case, two eye witnesses were examined by the Tribunal. I have perused the statements of both the eye witnesses, who clearly deposed before the Tribunal that they were travelling in the jeep which was driven by its driver on correct side of road at moderate speed but the bus owned by the Corporation came from opposite direction, which was driven rashly, negligently and with great speed, suddenly came to its wrong side of the road and hit the jeep with great force due to which, occupants of the jeep sustained severe injuries and some of the persons named above, succumbed to injuries. The Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence in right perspective reached to a categorical finding that it was the bus driver, who caused the said accident by driving the bus rashly and negligently. 14. In my considered opinion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is just and proper. Accordingly, issue No. 1 relating to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, is hereby affirmed. 15. Next comes the quantum of compensation assessed and awarded by the Tribunal in the claim cases aforestated. 16. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 346/1995 arising out of MACT Case No. 81/1991, filed by legal representatives of deceased Gost Mohd. Deceased Gost Mohd. on the relevant date of the accident was a young and healthy person of less than 30 years of age and earning Rs. 2,000/- per month. Since the deceased had as many as 5 dependents and the Tribunal awarded a meagre amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- this amount cannot be said to be excessive. In case of death of a young person a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- appears to be on lower side. Hence, it needs no interference. 17. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 347/1995 arising out of MACT Case No. 82/1991 filed by the legial representatives of deceased Devi Lal, who was a young person of 35 years of age and his monthly income at the relevant time was Rs. 3,000/-. He was engaged in the business of iron in the name and style of M/s. Jyoti Iron Works, situated at Mohan Colony, Banswara. He had as many as seven dependents including grand father aged about 90 years at the time of filing of the claim petition; parents, wife Dhuli Bai about 30 years of age and 3 minor children. The Tribunal awarded a meagre amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- as compensation. In my considered opinion, this amount cannot be said to be too excessive. On the contrary, it appears on lower side. Thus, it needs no interference. 18. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeals No. 9/1996 and 246/1995 arising out of MACT Case No. 83/1995 filed by the legal representatives of Smt. Gulab. The Tribunal awarded a meagre amount of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of two minor sons of the deceased and her husband. At the relevant date of accident deceased Smt. Gulab was 28 years of age. 18. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeals No. 9/1996 and 246/1995 arising out of MACT Case No. 83/1995 filed by the legal representatives of Smt. Gulab. The Tribunal awarded a meagre amount of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of two minor sons of the deceased and her husband. At the relevant date of accident deceased Smt. Gulab was 28 years of age. The case as set up by the claimants is that she was married to one Kishan Lal but she was subjected to cruelty by him and he used to beat her and, therefore, she along with her two sons namely Jitendra Kumar aged about 71/2 years and Vinod Kumar aged about 6 years came to her parental house and started living with them along with her minor sons. She was working as part time at Aangan Badi, a scheme run by the Government, at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month. She used to undertake work of tailoring and embroidering by which she used to earn about Rs. 1,200/- per month and, as such, her monthly income was Rs. 1,600/- per month. It has been established by the statement of PW-1 Ganesh Lal that deceased Smt. Gulab's sons namely Jitendra Kumar and Vinod Kumar were dependent on her income. However, she was not living with her husband and, therefore, neither she was contributing to the husband nor the husband was dependent on her. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- only, out of which Rs. 5,000/- were awarded in favour of the husband of deceased and remaining amount of Rs. 45,000/- to both the minor sons. 19. The claimants have preferred an appeal (SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 246/1995) seeking enhancement of compensation. It was pleaded and proved by the claimants that at the relevant time of the said accident, deceased Smt. Gulab was young and healthy lady of 28 years of age and she was earning Rs. 400/- per month as part time by working in Angan Badi, a scheme run by the Government, and also by undertaking the work of tailoring and embroidiering. It was also established that two minor sons namely Jitendra Kumar and Vinod Kumar were dependent on the income of the deceased as the deceased along with her two son were thrown out from the house of her husband. It was also established that two minor sons namely Jitendra Kumar and Vinod Kumar were dependent on the income of the deceased as the deceased along with her two son were thrown out from the house of her husband. Under these circumstances, the minor children of the deceased were completely dependent on the income of Smt. Gulab and because of her death, they are deprived of love, affection and guidance for all time to come. 20. It is settled law that multiplier method is logically sound and legally well-established in order to maintain certainty of award. In General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma, 1994 ACJ (1) SC , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that; it is necessary to reiterate that the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well-established. The proper method of computation is the multiplier method. Any departure, except in exceptional and extraordinary cases, would introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of unformity and an element of unpredictability for the assessment of compensation. It has been further held that the multiplier method is the accepted method of ensuring a 'just' compensation which will make uniformity and certainty of the awards. This view has further been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Trilok Chandra and Others, 1996 ACJ 831 . 21. Keeping in view the propositions, the income of deceased is taken, if not more at least at Rs. 1,600/- per month and deducting there from a sum of Rs. 600/- per month as personal expenses of the deceased, then a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month would have been available to the minor children. Thus, annual dependency comes to Rs. 1,000 x 12 = 12,000/- and this amount further needs to be multiplied by an appropriate multiplier of 18 years purchase factor. Thus, amount of compensation comes out to Rs. 2,16,000/- (Rs. 1000 x 12 x 18). Added to this a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for loss of love, affection and guidance. Therefore, total compensation works out to Rs. 2,31,000/- rounded to Rs. 2,30,000/-. As a sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal to Kishan Lal husband of deceased Smt. Gulab, therefore, the remaining amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- is fair, just and reasonable compensation in the circumstances of the case. 15,000/- for loss of love, affection and guidance. Therefore, total compensation works out to Rs. 2,31,000/- rounded to Rs. 2,30,000/-. As a sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal to Kishan Lal husband of deceased Smt. Gulab, therefore, the remaining amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- is fair, just and reasonable compensation in the circumstances of the case. This amount shall be payable to the minor sons of the deceased claimants No. 2 and 3 Jitendra Kumar and Vinod Kumar respectively in equal proportionate. 22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the appeals filed by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. Consequently, SB Civil Misc. Appeals No. 9/1996, 346/1995 and 347/1995 are hereby dismissed. However, the appeal filed by the legal representatives of deceased Smt. Gulab (SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 246/1995) is allowed to the extent that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,25,000/- This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realisation in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kaushnuma Begum (Smt.) and Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., (2001) 2 SCC 9 . Any amount paid towards 'no fault liability' or otherwise by the appellant, shall be adjusted. The Tribunal shall invest this amount in a Nationalised Bank payable to respondent claimants No. 2 and 3 namely Jitendra Kumar and Vinod Kumar respectively in accordance with the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC) , so as to yield adequate returns permitting the appellant Ganesh Lal, who is legal guardian of minor appellants to withdraw the interest periodically to be used for the maintenance and up-keep of minor claimant respondents. No order as to costs.Appeal Claimant Allowed/Appeal of Appellant Dismissed. *******