JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 8.6.93 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of claimant appellants (for short 'the claimants') and against respondents. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment and award impugned as well as record of the Tribunal. 2. Briefly stated the facts, to the extent they are relevant and necessary for decision of this appeal, are that on 26.12.87 Dr. Shashi Mutha aged about 25 years was travelling in jeep No. RJF 4008 from Bikaner to Husangsar. While the said jeep was plying at about 3.30 P.M. opposite to Bichhwal Filter Plant, truck DCM Toyata bearing number PAT 473 coming from opposite direction which was driven by its driver respondent No. 1 Foja Singh rashly, negligently and at a great speed, hit the said jeep. Due to this impact, the jeep went off the road covering a distance of 50 to 60 feet and occupants of the jeep including Dr. Shashi Mutha sustained servere injuries. Dr. Shashi Mutha was immediately taken to P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner. Dr. Shashi Mutha and Shri Laxaminarain succumbed to the injuries very day in the Hospital. Appellants Rakesh Narain Mutha, husband of deceased and Sumitra Mutha, minor son of deceased aged about 10 months, filed a claim application for compensation before the Tribunal. 3. On appreciation of evidence produced by the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the said accident resulted due to rash and negligent driving of the afore noticed truck by its driver respondent No. 1 Foja Singh and accordingly, the truck driver was held negligent for the said accident. The said truck was owned by respondent No. 2 Vishambhar Nath and was insured with respondent No. 3 United India Insurance Company Limited (for short 'the Insurance Company'). While computing the compensation, the Tribunal allowed lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the claimants and against the respondent holding them liable jointly and severally. 4. The said truck was owned by respondent No. 2 Vishambhar Nath and was insured with respondent No. 3 United India Insurance Company Limited (for short 'the Insurance Company'). While computing the compensation, the Tribunal allowed lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the claimants and against the respondent holding them liable jointly and severally. 4. In General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Others, (1994) 2 SCC 176 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is necessary to reiterate that multiplier method is logically sound and legally well-established of ensuring a 'just' compensation which will make for uniformity and certainty of the awards. The choice of the multiplier Is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimants whichever is higher. It was further held that proper method of computation is the multiplier method. Any departure, except in exceptional and extraordinary cases, would introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of uniformity and an element of unpredictability for the assessment of compensation. Their Lordships held that the multiplier method is well established method and departure from, this method can only be justified in rare and extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases. The case in hand cannot fall in the category of rare and extraordinary circumstances or very exceptional case. The Tribunal did not find any extraordinary circumstance or any exceptional case for departing from the established method for computing the compensation, this being the position, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding lumpsum compensation. 5. Keeping in view the stated proposition of law, the proper computation of compensation on the facts of this case is required to be made. From the pleadings and the evidence, it has been established that on the relevant date of the accident, Dr. Shashi Mutha was a young lady of 25 years of age. She had completed her M.B.B.S. examination and her internship at P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner was going to be completed in the month of April, 1988. During the internship, she used to be paid Rs. 785/- per month as stipend. She gave birth to a male child appellant No. 2, on 4th May, 1987 i.e. 8 months prior to the fatal accident which took place on 26.12.1987. On completion of internship, she would have been employed with Government hospital at the salary, if not more, atleast Rs.2,000/- per month. 785/- per month as stipend. She gave birth to a male child appellant No. 2, on 4th May, 1987 i.e. 8 months prior to the fatal accident which took place on 26.12.1987. On completion of internship, she would have been employed with Government hospital at the salary, if not more, atleast Rs.2,000/- per month. Even otherwise, if the Government employment would not have been available, she being a qualified medical practitioner, would have run her own private clinic. Viewed from any angle, she would have earned Rs.2,000/- per month. Thus, her annual income works out to Rs.24,000/-. Deducting ⅓rd therefrom as personal living expenses of the deceased, the annual contribution works out to Rs. 16,000/-. It is settled law that while computing compensation, future prospects of advancement In life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand. Assuming her income of Rs. 785/- per month as stipend on the relevant date of accident, if future prospects are also taken into consideration, then the income of Rs. 2,000/- per month cannot be said to be unreasonable. Monthly Income of the deceased has been proved by the statement of PW 3 Rakesh Narain Mutha. The statement of this witness so far as age, income, future prospects and other part is concerned, remain uncontroverted. Hence, the annual contribution of the deceased to the claimants Is determined at Rs.16,000/-. Deceased was 25 years of age and thus annual contribution needs to be multiplied by an appropriate multiplier of 18 years purchase factor. Thus, compensation works out to Rs.2,88,000/- (Rs. 16,000 X 18 = Rs.2,88,000) to which a conventional sum of Rs. 15,000/- should be added for loss of company, consortium to the husband and Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and affection, guidance etc. to appellant No. 2 Sumitra Mutha, minor son of the deceased and Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses. Thus, total compensation comes to Rs.3,15,000/- to which the claimants are entitled. 6. No other point was argued. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is allowed and the compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.3,15,000/-. This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realisation. Thus, total compensation comes to Rs.3,15,000/- to which the claimants are entitled. 6. No other point was argued. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is allowed and the compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.3,15,000/-. This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realisation. Out of total compensation, a sum of Rs.65,000/- and interest thereon shall be payable to appellant No. 1 Rakesh Narain Mutha, husband of the deceased and Rs.2,50,000/- and interest thereon shall be payable to appellant No. 2 Sumitra Mutha, minor son of the deceased. The amount payable to appellant No. 2 Sumitra Mutha shall be invested in a Nationalised Bank, till he attains majority, as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation's case (supra). There shall be no order as to costs.Appeal Allowed as Above. *******