Heard Mr. F.A. Khalid, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Jallaluddin, learned Addl.Govt.Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 3. 2. This appeal is directed against the order and award dated 26.02.2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manipur in MAC Case No. 67 of 2002. 3. The appellant No.1 is the widow and the appellants No. 2 and 3 are the daughter and son respectively of late Md. Sirajuddin, who was serving as Head Constable in Police Department, Manipur at the time of his death. On 28.2.2002 at about 10.15 am, while the said Md. Sirajuddin was proceeding along NH-39 in front of the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench building on southern side of the road from eastern direction towards his office at Police Headquarter, Imphal by driving his Hero Honda Splendour, he was knocked down by a Maruti Gypsy bearing registration No. MN-1A/6025 driven by the present respondent No.2 proceeding on the northern side of the road from western towards eastern direction. The said Md. Sirajuddin was badly injured in the accident and though he was evacuated to J.N.Hospital, he succumbed to his injuries on the same day. 4. It is the case of the appellants that the said occurrence took place due to rash and negligent driving of the said Maruti Gypsy by the present respondent No.2, who was serving as a driver in Police Department, Manipur. The said MAC Case No. 67 of 2002 was filed by the appellants alleging that they had been wholly depending on the earnings of the deceased and praying for allowing to get compensation of Rs. 8, 52,992/- from the respondents. 5. The present respondent Nos.1 and 3 filed a written statement denying all the averments made by the claimants (the appellants). The present respondent No.2 also filed a written statement denying the allegation of the claimants that the occurrence took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Gypsy and asserting that it took place due to rash and negligent driving of the said Hero Honda Splendour by the deceased Md. Sirajuddin. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manipur:- “1. Whether Md. Sirajuddin. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manipur:- “1. Whether Md. Sirajuddin died in a motor accident occurred on 28.2.2002 at about 10.15 am on NH No.39 in front of Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench involving Maruti Gypsy bearing regd. No. MN-1A/6025 due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by the respondent no.2” 2. Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation amount to the claimant? 3. What will be the just compensation amount payment to the claimant? 4. Are the claimant entitled to the relief claimed?” 7. 5(five) PWs were examined on the side of the claimants and 1(one) DW was examined on the side of the respondents. On the basis of the materials, learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manipur held that the said Md. Sirajuddin died in the motor accident that took place on 28.2.2002 at about 10.00 am on NH 39 due to contributory negligence of the respondent No. 2 who was then driving the said Maruti Gypsy bearing No. MN-1A/6025 and the deceased Md. Sirajuddin, who was then driving his Hero Honda bearing No. MN-1J-2748. As per finding of the of the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manipur, the said portion of the road, where the occurrence took place, was busy at the relevant time and though both the motor cyclist and the Maruti Gypsy driver were driving their respective vehicles in normal speed, the accident occurred in the middle portion of the road due to negligent acts of both the drivers inevitably. The learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manipur ordered that the respondents No.1 and 3 were to pay ½ of the compensation amount of Rs. 4.1 lakhs in connection with the said motor accident to the claimants/appellants within two months of passing the said order with interest of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 17.4.2002. It was further ordered that the share of the minor claimant No.3 (appellant No.3) was to be deposited as a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank in favour of the said minor under the guardianship of her mother until the expiry of the period of her minority. 8. It was further ordered that the share of the minor claimant No.3 (appellant No.3) was to be deposited as a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank in favour of the said minor under the guardianship of her mother until the expiry of the period of her minority. 8. Being aggrieved at the said award of the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manipur, this appeal has been filed. Mr. F.A.Khalid, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the amount awarded is not sustainable mainly on two grounds; firstly that on the basis of the materials before the Claims Tribunal, it was wronged on the part of the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manipur to hold that the accident took place due to contributory negligence of both the respondent No.2 and the said Md. Sirajuddin . Secondly, that the payment of compensation was not assessed in accordance with law. 9. In respect of the first ground, I have heard both sides through their respective counsel. The materials before this court are also perused. Though, the respondents did not take any plea of contributory negligence specifically in their written statement and as such though no issue was framed in respect of the contributory negligence specifically, there was a dispute in between the parties in respect of the question if the occurrence took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Gypsy by the respondent No.2 or due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the said Md. Sirajuddin. According to the claimants/appellants, the occurrence took place wholly due to rash and negligent driving of the said Maruti Gypsy by the respondent No.2. On the other hand, according to the respondents, the occurrence took place wholly due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the said Md. Sirajuddin. In these facts and circumstances, there is a need to ascertain if on the basis of the materials produced by both sides; there is sufficient basis for concluding that the occurrence took place due to contributory negligence of the respondent No.2 and the said Md. Sirajuddin. 10. Out of the 5(five) PWs examined on behalf of the claimants, only Md. Ishaq Ali (PW 2), who was a rifleman of 2nd Bn.MR posted at Police Headquarter at the relevant time, was an eye witness of the accident. Sirajuddin. 10. Out of the 5(five) PWs examined on behalf of the claimants, only Md. Ishaq Ali (PW 2), who was a rifleman of 2nd Bn.MR posted at Police Headquarter at the relevant time, was an eye witness of the accident. According to him (PW-2), on 28.2.2002 at about 10.00 am, while he was proceeding towards Police Headquarter, he saw a Maruti Gypsy coming from western side of the NH-39 in front of the Gauhati High Court at a high speed and dashed against the motor cyclist plying from eastern direction on the same road. Further, according to the PW-2, he saw the motor cyclist lying on the southern edge of the pucca road and the Maruti Gypsy vehicle parking near the body of the victim crossing the middle portion of the road. There is no dispute that the motor cyclist was the said Md. Sirajuddin and that the Maruti Gypsy vehicle was driven by the respondent No.2. PW-2 was cross-examined but his testimony was not shaken. It was suggested to him (PW-2) that the occurrence took place due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cyclist but he denied the suggestion. There is nothing to show that he (PW-2) was an interested witness. Shri Oinam Tomba Singh (PW-3) is the Investigating Officer of FIR Case No.81(2) 2002 IPS u/s 279/338/427 IPC, which was registered by the then O.C. of Imphal PS on suo moto basis purportedly after getting information about the said accident within some minutes of its occurrence. According to PW-3, the said case was endorsed to him for investigation by the then O.C. , Imphal PS and when he reached the place of occurrence on the same day at about 10.55 am, he found the involved Hero Honda lying on the south eastern side of the pucca road just near the dividing line. He (PW-3) did not find any injured person as well as the involved Maruti Gypsy at the spot. He (PW-3) learnt that the injured had been taken to the J.N.Hospital. Further, according to the PW-3, as per statements of witnesses given to him, the said Maruti Gypsy was driven at a high speed facing eastward near the dividing line on the said road and while it was trying to pass one cyclist crossing the road, it dashed against the motor cycle which was proceeding on the southern side of the road facing westward. PW-3 was cross-examined but his testimony was not shaken. 11. The said Maruti Gypsy driver, namely, Hemam Romesh, (DW-1), who was a constable driver of Police Department , Government of Manipur, was examined on the side of the respondents. According to him (DW-1), on that day at the relevant time, the road was busy and as such, he was driving the Maruti Gypsy slowly on the left side of the road and when he reached the portion of the road near the building of Gauhati High Court, he saw a motor cyclist coming from opposite direction at a high speed and the said motor cyclist dashed against the right side bumper of the Maruti Gypsy thereby causing injuries to the motor cyclist. Further, according to the DW -1, the place where the accident took place was a turning point area and as such, there was no road divider and he was driving his Maruti Gypsy with due care and caution. During the cross-examination, DW-1 admitted that he saw the injured motor cyclist lying on the edge of the pucca road on the southern side of the road and that N.Sudhir Singh, SDPO and his escorts were present in the Maruti Gypsy at the relevant time of the accident. However, none of the said persons present in the said Maruti Gypsy at the relevant time was produced to support his case that the accident took place not due to his rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Gypsy but due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the said motor cyclist. It is to be noted that DW-1 was an interested person in the case inasmuch as the question of his rash and negligent driving was in issue before the claims tribunal. 12. On the basis of the materials before the court, I am of the considered opinion that there was no sufficient justification on the part of the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manipur for coming to the said conclusion that the accident took place due to negligent acts of both the drivers. 12. On the basis of the materials before the court, I am of the considered opinion that there was no sufficient justification on the part of the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manipur for coming to the said conclusion that the accident took place due to negligent acts of both the drivers. Despite clear testimony of the eye witness (PW-2) to the effect that the accident took place wholly due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Gypsy by the respondent No.2 which was supported by the findings of the I.O. of the said FIR Case No. 81(2) 2002 IPS, it was unreasonable on the part of the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manipur to rely on the testimony of the interested witness (DW-1) and to come to a conclusion that the motor cyclist was rash and negligent in driving his motor cycle. There was no justification for disbelieving the testimony of the independent witness (PW-2), who was substantially supported by the finding of the I.O. during the investigation of the case which had been registered in connection with the same accident. So far as the claimants are concerned, they produced independent eye witness of the accident. On the other hand, despite the fact that there were other eye witnesses present in the Maruti Gypsy at the relevant time, only the driver, who was very much interested in the case, was examined. No reason is given as to why the other eye witnesses were not produced by the respondents. The respondents were in a better position to produce those eye witnesses of the said accident. The driver of the said Maruti Gypsy (DW-1) admitted that after the accident, he saw the motor cyclist lying on the edge of the pucca road on the southern side of the road. As per testimony of the independent eye witness (PW-2), the Maruti Gypsy vehicle was driven at a high speed towards the eastern direction and it dashed against the motor cyclist coming from the opposite direction and just after the said accident, he (PW-2) saw the motor cyclist lying on the southern edge of the pucca road and the Maruti Gypsy vehicle parking near the body of the victim crossing the middle portion of the road i.e., on the southern side portion of the road. In the facts and circumstances, in the absence of any reliable evidences to show as to what compelled the driver of the Maruti Gypsy to cross over the southern portion of the road, the only reasonable conclusion is that the accident took place due to his rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Gypsy vehicle and not due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cyclist. 13. The question of contributory negligence would have arisen only when there was some act or omission on the part of the victim, which materially contributed to the accident caused and was of such a nature that it might properly be described as negligent. Negligence ordinarily means breach of a legal duty to care but when, used in the expression “contributory negligence” it does not mean breach of any duty. It only means the failure on the part of the person to use reasonable care for the safety of either himself or his property, so that he becomes blameworthy in part as the “author of his own wrong”. The Apex Court held to the same effect in PramodKumar RasikBhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak & ors, (2002) 6 SCC 455 . The following observation of the High Court of Australia in Astley v. Austrust Ltd. (1999) 73 ALJR 403 was quoted by the Apex Court in the said case reported in (2002) 6 SCC 455 ; “The finding of contributory negligence turns on a factual investigation whether the plaintiff contributed to his or her own loss by failing to take reasonable care of his or her person or property. What is reasonable care depends on the circumstance of the case. In many cases, it may be proper for a plaintiff to rely on the defendant to perform its duty. But there is no absolute rule. The duties and responsibilities of the defendant are a variable factor in determining whether contributory negligence exists and, if so, to what degree. In some cases, the nature of the duty owed may exculpate the plaintiff from a claim of contributory negligence; in other cases, the nature of the duty may reduce the plaintiff's share of responsibility for the damage suffered; and in yet other cases the nature of duty may not prevent a finding that the plaintiff failed to take reasonable care for the safety of his or her person or property. Contributory negligence focuses on the conduct of the plaintiff. The duty owed by the defendant, although relevant, is one only of many factors that must be weighed in determining whether the plaintiff has so conducted itself that it failed to take reasonable care for the safety of its person or property.” 14. In the present case, there is no reliable evidence to show that the said motor cyclist failed to use reasonable care for his own safety or property. As per the evidence of the eye witness (PW-2), the motor cyclist was proceeding at normal speed on the southern side of the road, i.e., on his own side of the road. The Maruti Gypsy was driven at a high speed on the northern side of the road i.e., on its side of the road but it dashed against the motor cyclist on the southern side of the road after crossing the mid line as evident from testimony of the eye witness (PW-2) that the Maruti Gypsy was seen standing on the southern side of the road near the motor cyclist who was lying near the southern edge of the pucca portion of the road just after the accident. In the facts and circumstance, there was no contributory negligence on the part of the motor cyclist. As per evidence given by the I.O. (PW-3) on the basis of the findings of his investigation, while the Maruti Gypsy driver was trying to pass one cyclist who was crossing the road, the Maruti Gypsy, which was driven at a high speed, dashed against the motor cycle proceeding on the other side of the road. No reliable evidencez was produced from the side of the respondents to show that the Maruti Gypsy was driven with reasonable care. 15. Therefore, I am of the view that the factual situation proved in this case does not show that the motor cyclist, namely, Md. Sirajuddin was contributorily negligent in causing the accident. Accordingly, he impugned finding of the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manipur in this regard is hereby set aside. 16. In respect of the second ground, the learned counsel of the appellants submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manipur is inadequate and that it should have been calculated as per Second Schedule of the MV Act, 1988. 16. In respect of the second ground, the learned counsel of the appellants submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manipur is inadequate and that it should have been calculated as per Second Schedule of the MV Act, 1988. Further, according to the learned counsel of the appellants, the deceased Md. Sirajuddin , who was then working as Head Constable , was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 6272 per month and after deductions of 1/3 towards his personal expenses, the loss of dependency to the claimants comes to Rs.4,180/- per month, i.e., Rs. 50,160 per annum. The learned counsel of the appellants submits that having regard to the age of the deceased, in terms of the Second Schedule of the MV Act, 1988, the Tribunal should have taken 16 as the correct multiplier and that by doing so, the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 50,160 x 16 = Rs. 8,02,560/-. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellants/claimants that the Tribunal ought to have added a sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses, mental shock and suffering caused to the family, etc. to the above said amount of Rs. 8,02,560/- and as such, the appellants are entitled to Rs.8,62,560. Moreover, according to the appellants' counsel, after taking into consideration of the future prospects in life of the deceased, the just compensation should be Rs. 8,77,492/-. 17. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanty & ors. AIR 1966 SC 1750 , the Supreme Court highlighted certain principles as regard fixation of an appropriate multiplier and computation of compensation. In a fatal accident occasioned, the expected measure of damages awarded to the dependence is the pecuniary loss suffered both as a result of the death. “How much has the widow and family lost by the father's death?” The answer to this lies in the often quoted passage from the opinion of Lord Wright in Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd. (1942 AC 601) which ways:- “The starting point is the amount of wages which the deceased was earning, the ascertainment of which to some extent may depend upon the regularity of his employment. Then there is an estimate of how much was required or expended for his personal and living expenses. Then there is an estimate of how much was required or expended for his personal and living expenses. The balance will give a datum or basic figure which will generally be turned into a lump sum by taking a certain number of years' purchase. That sum, however, has to be taxed down by having due to uncertainties, for instance, that widow might have again married and thus ceased to be dependent, and other like matters of speculation and doubt.” 18. It is quite obvious that the assessment of damages to compensate the dependence is very difficult because of the nature of things. It has to take into account many imponderables, for example, the life expectancy of the deceased and dependents, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependence during that period, the chance that the deceased may not have lived or the dependents may not live upto the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chance that the deceased may not have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether. It is well settled that the object of awarding compensation is to mitigate hardships that has been caused to the legal representatives due to the sudden demise of the deceased in the accident. Accordingly, compensation awarded should not be inadequate and should neither be unreasonable, excessive or deficient. In other words, it should neither be punitive against whom claim is decreed nor should it be a source of profit for the person is whose favour it is awarded. 19. The Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S.Rajapriya & ors. AIR 2005 SC 2985 at para 10 and in Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd. v. K.I.Bindu & ors. AIR 2005 SC 4425 at para 12, observed:- “Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis “and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master” since there are so often many imponderables. In every cases, “it is the overall pictures that matters”, and the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered.” 20. There is no dispute that the multiplier method is a sound system of computing compensation. In every cases, “it is the overall pictures that matters”, and the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered.” 20. There is no dispute that the multiplier method is a sound system of computing compensation. In GM, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 4 SCC 176, the Supreme Court reiterated in para 16 that the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established as compared to other methods indicated in other decisions in which different methods of compensation were applied. It was observed that these cases cannot be said to have laid down any principle of computation of compensation. The Supreme Court then observed as follows (See p.185 para.16):- “The 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. Some judgments of the High Courts have justified a departure from the multiplier method on the ground that Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 insofar as it envisages the compensation to be 'just' the statutory determination of a 'just' compensation would unshackle the exercise from any rigid formula. It must be borne in mind that the multiplier method is an accepted method of ensuring a 'just' compensation which will make for uniformity and certainty of the awards. We disapproved these decisions of the High Courts which have taken a contrary view. We indicate that the multiplier method is the appropriate method, a departure from which can only be justified in rare and extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases.” 21. The same view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in UP State Road Transport Corporation & ors. v. Trilok Chandra & ors. (1996) 4 SCC 362 . It was observed that the multiplier method is the accepted method for determining just compensation, which also brings about uniformity and certainty of award. It was also observed at para 18 about the Second Schedule that neither the Tribunal nor the Court can go by the ready reckoner, it can only be used as a guide. The Supreme Court observed at para 18 as follows:- “It can only be used as a guide. Besides the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased. The Supreme Court observed at para 18 as follows:- “It can only be used as a guide. Besides the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased. For example, if the deceased, a bachelor, dies at the age of 45 years and his dependences are his parents, age of the parents would also be relevant in the choice of the multiplier”. 22. After referring to all the above decisions, in United India Insurance Commandant Ltd. & ors, v. Patricia Jean Mahajan & ors., (2002) 6 SCC 281 , at para 16, the Supreme Court observed :- “What thus emerges from the above decisions is that the court must adhere to the system of multiplier in arriving at the proper amount of compensation, and also with a view to maintain uniformity and certainty. Use of higher multiplier has been deprecated and it is emphasized that cannot exceed 18. The multiplier, as would be evident from the observations quoted earlier, may differ in the peculiar facts and circumstances of a particular case as according to the examples cited, where a bachelor dies at the age of 45, the age of his dependent parents may be relevant for selecting an proper multiplier. Meaning thereby that the a multiplier less than what is provided in the Schedule could be applied in the special facts and circumstances of a case. In the later cases also this court has taken the same view that the multiplier system is a more appropriate and proper method for calculating the amount of compensation. Lata Wadha v. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197 may be referred to. Decision in the case of Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 and others English decision considered in the judgments referred earlier, namely, Davis v. Taylor, 1974 AC 207, Davis v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd, (1942) 1 All ER 657 and Mallett v. McMonagle 1970 AC 166 have been referred.” 23. In the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2002) 6 SCC 281 , the Supreme Court approved the application of a multiplier method than the schedule multiplier on finding the multiplicand very high. According to the Supreme Court, for some special reasons, some deviation from the scheduled multiplier can be made. 24. In the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2002) 6 SCC 281 , the Supreme Court approved the application of a multiplier method than the schedule multiplier on finding the multiplicand very high. According to the Supreme Court, for some special reasons, some deviation from the scheduled multiplier can be made. 24. In UP State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Krishna Kumar Bala , AIR 2006 SCW 3613 , the Supreme Court held at para 8 :- “The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased ( or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by ways of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up-over the period for which the dependency is excepted to last.” 25. Considering the principles stated above, the fixation of the amount of compensation in connection with the said Md. Sirajuddin as Rs. 4.10 lakhs abruptly is not sustainable in the eye of law. As per evidence before the tribunal, the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 6272/- per month. After deduction of 1/3 of the salary towards his personal expenses, the loss of the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 4180/- per month i.e. Rs. 50,160/- per annum. The said amount of Rs.59, 160/- is rounded up to Rs.50, 000/-. Having regard to all the relevant considerations, the appropriate multiplier will be 8 in this case. Therefore, compensation to be awarded would be Rs. 50,000/- x 8 = Rs.4 lakhs. To the aforesaid sum would be added Rs. 50,000/- for deprivation of life and affection and funeral expenses etc., and therefore, entitlement of a claimants/appellants is Rs.4.50 lakhs. The accident took place on 28.2.2002. Therefore, the rate of interest would be 8% percent per annum on the said amount of compensation of Rs.4, 50,000/- from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 17.4.2002. The respondents shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount of compensation and interest. The accident took place on 28.2.2002. Therefore, the rate of interest would be 8% percent per annum on the said amount of compensation of Rs.4, 50,000/- from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 17.4.2002. The respondents shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount of compensation and interest. The share amount of the minor claimant No.3 is to be deposited in the manner and for the period specified by the Tribunal. This appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.