JUDGMENT Maibam B.K. Singh, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.6.2007 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Mokokchung, Nagaland, in MAC Case No. 207 of 2002 awarding a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- (Rupees five lacs fifty-thousand) only in favour of the claimants, who are respondents in this appeal and as against the State of Nagaland and the Director General of Police, Nagaland, Kohima. As per the impugned order, the said amount is to be paid within 30 days from the date of the order in the manner directed in the order itself and failing which an interest of 9% per annum is to be added to the awarded amount with effect from the date of filing the claim petition. The above said award was made in connection with the death of the claimant No. 1's son, namely, Takomeren, in a motor accident on 5.6.1986 involving a jeep bearing Registration No. NLP-1186 belonging to the State of Nagaland. 2. I have heard Mr. B.N. Sarma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, the State of Nagaland and Mr. Tongpok, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3. The only point submitted by the learned Counsel of the appellant is regarding the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the claimants. According to the learned Counsel of the appellant, instead of awarding a just compensation, the learned Member, MACT, Mokokchung, awarded an excessive compensation by adopting multiplier of 15 erroneously and also by calculating the loss of dependency illegally and erroneously. 4. In the State of Haryana v. Jasbir Khan, AIR 2003 SC 3696 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held at para 7 of the judgment: 7. ...What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all the cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be just" a wide discretion is vested on the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression "just" denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just See. Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 1998 SC 3191 . 5. In T.N. State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya, (2005) 6 SCC 236 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held, (see p. 240, paras 8-10): 8. The assessment of damages to compensate the defendants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables e.g. the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income might have lost his employment or income together. 9. The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalized by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years' purchased. 10. 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 case 'it is the overall picture that matters', and the Court must try to asses as best as it can the loss suffered. 6. 10. 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 case 'it is the overall picture that matters', and the Court must try to asses as best as it can the loss suffered. 6. On the basis of the materials before the Claim Tribunal, the findings of the learned Member are that the deceased Takomeren was aged about 24 years and that he was serving in Nagaland police service at the time of the motor accident causing his death. Though the case of the claimants was that out of the said Takomeren's monthly earning of Rs. 2,500/- at the minimum, he was contributing Rs. 1,600/- per month for the maintenance of the family, the learned Member, MACT, Mokokchung, after taking into consideration of the chances of getting promotions as well as getting higher pay in future by him and also of the fall in the value of money within the period from 1986 to 2007, held that had the deceased Takomeren been in service, he would have been receiving Rs. 4,500/- or more per month. Thereafter, the learned Member held as follows: Since the father is the claimant, the age of the deceased son has to be discarded and the age of the claimant has to be considered. If so, at the time of filing of this claim petition the claimant father was 58 years, then his age at the time of accident i.e. 1986 might be 42 to 44 years, as such the loss of future earning may be calculated as Rs. 4500 x 12 x 15 : 8,10,000/- one third for uncertainty, that would be Rs. 27,000/- along with other heads as admissible under MV Act 1988. Therefore, the amount of future dependency comes to the tune of Rs. 5,40,000/-which has to be considered as the loss of future earning. Apart from that the claimant would be entitled to compensation as worked out hereunder: 1. Rs. 5,40,000/- on loss of future earning. 2. Rs. 5,000/- on funeral expense. 3. Rs. 5,000/- on loss love and affection. Total Rs. 5,50,000/- (Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand) only. Rs. 50,000/- already been awarded in the form of interim relief. However, the opp. party did not deposit the amount till today. 7. Rs. 5,40,000/- on loss of future earning. 2. Rs. 5,000/- on funeral expense. 3. Rs. 5,000/- on loss love and affection. Total Rs. 5,50,000/- (Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand) only. Rs. 50,000/- already been awarded in the form of interim relief. However, the opp. party did not deposit the amount till today. 7. It is thus ascertained that despite the pleading of the claimants to the effect that their dependency on the deceased at the relevant time was Rs. 1,600/- per month and that the earning of the deceased per month at the minimum was Rs. 2,500/- per month, the learned Member, MACT, held that had the deceased been in service, he would have received at least Rs. 4,500/- per month. On perusal of the records it is ascertained that no relevant fact in connection with the future earning of the deceased was proved by any reliable and cogent evidence. In the absence of any reliable and cogent evidence in respect of the future earnings or future prospects of the deceased, the above said view of the learned Member, MACT, Mokokchung, is not sustainable in the eye of the law. 7.1 In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jashuben, (2008) 4 SCC 162 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held at page 167, para 14: 14. The amount of compensation indisputably should be determined having regards to the pecuniary loss caused to the dependents by reason of the death of the victim. It was necessary to consider the earnings of the deceased at the time of the accident. Of course, further (sic future) prospects is not out of bound for such consideration but the same should be founded on some legal principal. 7.2 In my considered opinion; in the present case, in the absence of reliable and cogent evidence regarding future earnings of the deceased, the learned Member, MACT, ought to have taken into account the earnings of the deceased only at the time of the accident causing his death and not his future prospects or earnings in respect of which no reliable or cogent evidence was produced. In taking into consideration the future earnings of the deceased, the learned Member, MACT, committed illegality. 8. Further, in the present case, though the claimant No. 1 gives statements before the Claims Tribunal to the effect that the deceased was contributing Rs. In taking into consideration the future earnings of the deceased, the learned Member, MACT, committed illegality. 8. Further, in the present case, though the claimant No. 1 gives statements before the Claims Tribunal to the effect that the deceased was contributing Rs. 2,000/- every month towards family expenditure, the pleading of the claimants in their claim petition is that the deceased was contributing Rs. 1,600/- every month towards family expenditure. In the above circumstances, having regards to all the relevant considerations including the reasonable amount which the deceased must have spent to meet his personal expenses out of the amount earned by him in one month, I consider that a sum of Rs. 1,600/- is the amount which one may accept as a reasonable amount which the deceased must have contributed towards the expenditure of his family. In the light of the above consideration, the amount which the deceased must have contributed towards the expenditure of the family in one years is Rs. 1,600 x 12 i.e. Rs. 19,200/-. Accordingly, the said amount of Rs. 19,200/- represents the loss of dependency caused to the claimants as -a result of the death of the deceased in the motor accident. 9. Regarding the choice of 15 as the multiplier by the learned Member, MACT, I do not find any illegality. While choosing 15 as the multiplier, the learned Member, MACT, took into consideration the likely age of the claimant father of the deceased at the time of the accident considering the undisputed fact that the claimant father was 58 years at the time of filing of the claim petition, the learned Member, MACT, calculated to the effect that the age of the claimant father must be above 40 years but not exceeding 45 years at the time of the motor accident. In that view of the matter, choosing of 15 as the multiplier in the case warrants no interference. The submission of the learned Counsel of the appellant that age of the claimant father at the time of filing the claim petition should be the determining factor in respect of choosing the correct multiplier in the case is not acceptable. In that view of the matter, choosing of 15 as the multiplier in the case warrants no interference. The submission of the learned Counsel of the appellant that age of the claimant father at the time of filing the claim petition should be the determining factor in respect of choosing the correct multiplier in the case is not acceptable. Since the claimants have been deprived of their dependency on the deceased from the date of accident, no illegality was committed by the learned Member, MACT, in taking into account the age of the claimant father at the time of the accident in connection with choosing of the multiplier in the case. No authority is also produced to the notice of this Court for supporting the view of the learned Counsel of the appellant that the age of the eldest claimant at the time of filing the claim petition should be the determining factor in respect of choosing the correct multiplier. 9.1 In G.M., Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held (see p. 183, para 13): 13. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstance 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 the rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regards 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 expected to last. 10. The same view was also held in U.P. SRTC v. Krishna Bala, (2006) 6 SCC 249 , at page 252-53, para 8. In my considered opinion, having regards to the well-settled principles of law regarding choice of an appropriate multiplier and also keeping in view the relevant facts and circumstances, no interference is called for as regards choosing of 15 as the multiplier in the case. 11. In the result, the amount of compensation should be determined by adopting the multiplier of 15, which comes to Rs. 19,200 x 15 i.e. Rs. 2,88,000/-. 11. In the result, the amount of compensation should be determined by adopting the multiplier of 15, which comes to Rs. 19,200 x 15 i.e. Rs. 2,88,000/-. To the above amount, the following general damages (i) funeral expenses-Rs. 2,000/- and (ii) loss of estate - Rs. 2,500/- should also be added. In the absence of any evidence to show that Rs. 5,000/- was spent in funeral of the deceased, it was not proper on the part of the learned Member to award Rs. 5,000/- as funeral expenses. The sum of Rs. 2,000/- is considered as a reasonable amount in respect of funeral expenses. As regards medical expenses, there is no evidence to show that any expense was incurred in giving treatment to the said Takomeren after the accident and before his death and as such, no award is to be made in that regard. The claimants shall be entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 2,88,000/- + Rs. 2000/- + Rs. 2,500/- i.e. Rs. 2,92,500/- from the appellant. The appellant shall pay the said amount of Rs. 2,92,500/- as expeditiously as possible along with an interest of 9% per annum on the said amount with effect for the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 27.11.2002. The payment is to be made in the manner directed by the learned Member, MACT, Mokokchung in the impugned judgment and order. 12. This appeal is allowed to the extent stated above and it stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed