Judgment Barin Ghosh and Navaniti Pd.Singh JJ. 1. The accident in the instant case took place prior to coming into operation the amendments effected to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by which the schedule appended to Section 163A was inserted in the said Act. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M., K.S.R.T. Corpn., Trivendrum vs. Susamma Thomas, AIR 1994 SC 1631 , though applied a multiplier for the purpose of arriving at the correct compensation payable to the family of a person who had been victim of a motor vehicle accident but did not apply the schedule thus brought in. In a subsequent judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Others vs. Trilok Chand & Ors., reported in 1996 SCC 362 , once again the Hon ble Supreme Court applied a multiplier but not the one specified in the said schedule inasmuch as the accident occurred prior to the date of corning into force of the said schedule. In the case of Maitri Koley vs. New India Assurance; reported in (2003)8 SCC 718 , the Hon ble Supreme Court in no uncertain terms held that the liability of the insurer would be covered by the law prevailing on the date of the accident and inasmuch as the accident occurred prior to the date of coming into force of the said schedule, the provisions contained therein had no application in relation to ascertainment of compensation payable to the family of the victim of the said accident. In the latest judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Krishna Bala; reported in (2006)6 SCC 249 , where the accident occurred on 29th November, 1990, i.e., prior to the date of coming into force of the said schedule, though the Supreme Court used a multiplier but not the one as specific in the said schedule. 2. 2. The said judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court make it abundantly clear that if the accident occurs after the schedule had come into force compensation payable for such accident shall be calculated in the manner as specified in the schedule, but if the accident has occurred earlier, then although a proper multiplier may be applied, but the principal object thereof would be to ascertain what compensation will enure an income equivalent to the income lost by reason of the death. Although the best method for doing so would be to ascertain the quantum of the loss and then to capitalize the same in such manner that investment thereof in safe and secure deposit at the prevalent known rate of interest would yield such income that the loss would be compensated adequately. However, although to achieve the same there is no necessity of applying an appropriate multiplier and on the contrary it may be necessary to ascertain the prevalent rate of interest on such deposit but the fact remains that in this case while the matter was dealt with by the Tribunal evidence pertaining to such interest had not been brought on record. In those circumstances, appropriate multipliers as appeared appropriate to the courts, including the Hon ble Supreme Court, have been applied to ascertain the amount of compensation. 3. In the instant case, the claimants were wife and minor child of the victim, who died of a motor vehicle accident. Admittedly, at the time of his death the deceased was thirty one years old in terms of his School Leaving Certificate. In terms of the schedule as inserted in the Act multiplier of seventeen is applicable. The Tribunal applied a multiplier of eighteen. The same has been reduced to twelve by the appellate court. The reason given is that in the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chandra (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that usually operative multiplier rarely exceeds sixteen. Why the same should be reduced to twelve, i.e., below sixteen has not been indicated in the order impugned. The reason given is that in the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chandra (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that usually operative multiplier rarely exceeds sixteen. Why the same should be reduced to twelve, i.e., below sixteen has not been indicated in the order impugned. Inasmuch as death by reason of the accident has taken place before insertion of the said schedule, in terms of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas (supra)., for loss of consortium a sum of rupees fifteen thousand and for loss of estate a sum of rupees fifteen thousand are awardable as compensation. This had not been awarded either by the Tribunal or by the appeal court instead something else, borrowed from the said schedule, had been awarded. 4. Undisputedly the deceased had a monthly income of rupees fourteen hundred and as such he had an yearly income of rupees sixteen thousand eight hundred. Of this sum of rupees sixteen thousand eight hundred, one third is required to be deducted for ascertaining the loss of income by reason of death in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susama Thomas (supra). Therefore, the loss by reason of the death on account of such accident to the claimants amounted to rupees eleven thousand two hundred. The Tribunal and the appeal court were required to fix such multiplier so as to ensure that on investment of the amount of compensation, the claimants get a sum of rupees eleven thousand two hundred a year. We have taken judicial notice of the fact that safe and secure investments as available with nationalised banks may fetch eight per cent secured interest per annum. Inasmuch as interest at said rate is payable on quarterly basis, in order to obtain nine hundred forty rupees a month by way of interest, the investment should be a little higher. In the circumstances, the investment of rupees one lac fifty thousand would enure such interest. In order to achieve the same, we think the multiplier should be thirteen and half. In the circumstances, the investment of rupees one lac fifty thousand would enure such interest. In order to achieve the same, we think the multiplier should be thirteen and half. Thus, for directing payment of compensation on account of loss of income, if a direction is given to compensate the claimants by rupees one iac fifty thousand, the same would achieve the purpose. To that a sum of rupees fifteen thousand on account of loss of a consortium and a sum of rupees fifteen thousand on account of loss of estate should be added. Inasmuch as the accident occurred when the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was in operation and as the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 had not come into operation, in so far the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, the same shall be governed by the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the said Act restricted such liability to a sum of rupees one lac fifty thousand and, accordingly, it is made clear that the liability of the Insurance Company will remain confined to rupees one lac fifty thousand plus Interest as awarded. The directions contained in the order under appeal are substituted by the directions as above.