JUDGMENT 1. - This common judgment will dispose of aforesaid civil special appeals No. 56/1998 and 58/1998 and cross-objection filed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 58/1998. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeals are as follows. In the night intervening 3rd and 4th of May, 1998, truck No. RJE 5305 was being driven by Bashir Khan (appellant in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 58/1998). The cleaner of the truck was Hanuman Ram. On the fateful night the tuck was proceeding from Jodhpur to Soneli village. It was carrying stone slabs. As it reached near village Soyala, the driver of the truck sighted the offending bus 10 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. It is claimed that this bus was coming from the opposite direction and was being driven in rash and negligent manner. Apprehending a possible collision between the vehicles, Bashir Khan took the truck to the left side on the kachcha road. On that side of the road a camel was also standing. Shafi Mohammed who was driving the 15 Roadways bus first hit the camel and, thereafter, collided against the truck. As a result of the accident, Hanuman Ram died on the spot due to the injuries received by him. Bashir Khan was also injured but he survived. Bashir Khan suffered fractures of his right leg as also his clavicle bone. His right leg was shortened by one and a quarter inch. Due to fracture of his clavicle bone the 1 mobility of his hand was to a great extent reduced. 3. The appellant in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 56 of 1998 are the parents of deceased Hanuman Ram. They preferred claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur being claim case No. 121/1992. s Similarly, injured Bashir Khan, driver of the truck also filed claim case No. 120/1992 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation in favour of the appellants in claim case No. 121 of 1992. Similar amount was awarded in favour of injured Bashir Khan in claim case No. 120 of 1992. Aggrieved by the award dated 4.11.1992 the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation preferred two separate appeals being No. 103 and 104 of 1993 against the appellants, parents of deceased Hanuman Ram and against injured Bashir Khan, respectively. Similar amount was awarded in favour of injured Bashir Khan in claim case No. 120 of 1992. Aggrieved by the award dated 4.11.1992 the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation preferred two separate appeals being No. 103 and 104 of 1993 against the appellants, parents of deceased Hanuman Ram and against injured Bashir Khan, respectively. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by his judgment dated 6.1.1997 allowed the appeals in part and modified the impugned award dated 4.11.1992 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur to the extent that in claim case No. 121/1992 the parents of the deceased Hanuman Ram were held entitled to compensation of Rs.1,44,600/-, thus reducing the award money by a sum of Rs.55,400/-. In claim case No. 120/1992, claimant Bashir Khan was held entitled to a sum of Rs.85,000/- only, thus reducing the compensation by a sum of Rs.1,15,000/-. However, the learned Single Judge held the claimants entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitions till the date of realisation of compensation amount. Thus the rate of interest awarded by the Claims Tribunal was not varied and was maintained by the learned Single Judge. 4. The parents of the deceased Hanuman Ram and injured Bashir Khan, feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, have preferred the aforesaid appeals. In D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 58 of 1998, preferred by injured-claimant Bashir Khan, the Road Transport Corporation has filed cross-objections. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. We will first take up the appeal filed by the parents of the deceased Hanuman Ram. The basic facts are not in dispute. Hanuman Ram was 22 years old when he lost his life due to the accident. He was earning a sum of Rs.700/- per month + Rs.10/- as daily allowance. The learned Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the claimants whereas the learned Single Judge assessed the compensation at Rs.1,44,600/-, reducing the same by Rs.55,400/-. In reducing the amount, the learned Single Judge took the annual income for the deceased at Rs.12,050/- (700 x 12 + 10 x 30 x 12) and assessed the dependency of the family as Rs.9,640/-, by deducting 40 115th of the annual income of the deceased. In reducing the amount, the learned Single Judge took the annual income for the deceased at Rs.12,050/- (700 x 12 + 10 x 30 x 12) and assessed the dependency of the family as Rs.9,640/-, by deducting 40 115th of the annual income of the deceased. Considering the age of the parents of the deceased, the learned Single Judge selected multiplier of for determining the compensation to be granted to the claimants, parents of the deceased. Thus, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the appellants (in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 56 of 1998) were entitled to an amount of Rs.1,55,600/- as compensation. 7. It appears that the learned Single Judge lost sight of the fact that in case the deceased Hanuman Ram had not died on the fateful day he would have been able to earn higher salary over a period of time. Salary and emoluments do not remain static. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that over the years salary and emoluments have gone up. Besides, the learned Single Judge failed to adopt the structural formula provided by the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. According to the Schedule, for computing third party compensation, where age of the victim is between 20 years and 25 years, statutory multiplier given in the table is 17. in Ratan Lal Mehta v. Rajendra Kapoor, 1996 ACJ 372 , the Delhi High Court recognised the fact that the statutory multiplier table provided in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, which came into effect from 14.11.1994 is of relevance even for the cases arising before 14.11.1994. This view was taken for rationalising the awards and for removal of ad hocism in selection of multipliers based on individual perception. In this regard, the Court observed as follows: "A statutory multiplier table has arrived in India with effect from 14.11.1994. That means that our Parliament is ahead of the Parliament in U.K. and other countries. The amendment by Act 54 of 1994 to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, contains a multiplier table in the Second Schedule. The amendment is prospective and applies to cases of accidents which have occurred after 14.11.1994. (Unfortunately, in the quantum fixed for different levels of loss of annual earnings, there are clear arithmetical errors in multiplication. The amendment by Act 54 of 1994 to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, contains a multiplier table in the Second Schedule. The amendment is prospective and applies to cases of accidents which have occurred after 14.11.1994. (Unfortunately, in the quantum fixed for different levels of loss of annual earnings, there are clear arithmetical errors in multiplication. In our view, the arithmetical mistakes in the table can be corrected by the Courts/Tribunals for if there is an obvious arithmetical mistake in the table appended to a statute, the Courts can correct the same. The mistake are confined to the other columns which refer to the amounts in rupees. While the column relating to the appropriate multiplier for different age levels does not contain any mistakes, the mistakes are confined to the other columns which refer to the amounts in rupees. .......... .......... If the above procedure enunciated by us based on the statutory multiplier provided by Parliament is applied, we can steer clear of conflicts in the multipliers applied by Courts on the judicial side in several cases. This approach of ours will help in rationalising awards, remove ad hocism in selection of multipliers based on individual preferences. A whole range of discrimination between cases and case can easily be avoided. That is why we have taken pains to give reasons as to why the statutory multiplier Table provided for prospective use can also be used for accidents, which occurred before 14.11.1994." 8. It is significant to note that the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Trilok Chandra & Ors., 1996(4) SCC 362 , selected multiplier on the basis of statutory Table even though the victim died of the accident which occurred in the year 1977. The Supreme Court used the Table as a guide for determining the multiplier. In Kaushnuma Begum & Ors. v. New India Assurance Company Ltd., 2001(2) SCC 9 , the Supreme Court again adopted the structured formula table provided by the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act even though the victim died of the accident which place in the year 1986 i.e., before the amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act which came into effect on 14.11.1994. in A.C. Gupta v. New India Assurance Company Ltd., 2000(87) DLC 779 . The Delhi High Court calculated the income of the victim by taking into consideration his future career prospects. in A.C. Gupta v. New India Assurance Company Ltd., 2000(87) DLC 779 . The Delhi High Court calculated the income of the victim by taking into consideration his future career prospects. In the circumstances, therefore, we are of the so opinion that the learned Single Judge was not right in modifying the award passed in favour of the appellants in claim case No. 121/1992. Therefore, we set-aside the order of the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 103 of 1993 and restore the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 4.11.1992 passed in claim Case No. 121/1992. 9. We will now take up D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 58 of 1998 filed by injured appellant Bashir Khan. As a result of the accident, Bashir Khan suffered fractures one of his right leg and other of his clavicle bone. Besides, his right leg was shortened by one and a quarter inch. Even strength of his leg was reduced substantially. On account of fracture of his clavicle bone mobility of his hand was reduced substantially. He was not able to attend to his job for about six months and spent huge amount of money on his treatment. He suffered mental agony and pain. these are the findings arrived is at by the learned Single Judge in his judgment. Having arrived at these findings, the learned Single Judge was not justified in reducing the amount of compensation drastically. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to raise the compensation awarded in favour of the claimant Bashir Khan by the learned Single Judge from Rs.85,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/-. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 104/1993 is modified to the extent indicated above. 10. We do not find any merit in the cross appeal of the respondent Insurance Company filed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 58/1998 11. The appellants, in both the appeals, shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of their claim petitions till the date of realisation of the amounts. 12. The appeals, therefore, stand allowed as above.Appeal Allowed. *******