JUDGMENT Hon’ble R.A. Singh, J.—First Appeal No. 1066 of 1993 against judgment and award dated 14.7.1993 passed by Shri U.B. Singh, the then M.A.C.T./IX Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, in M.A.C.P. No. 169 of 1989 was dismissed by Division Bench of Hon’ble S.K. Singh, J and Hon’ble Pankaj Mittal, J, on 16.2.2009 for non-compliance of orders dated 18.5.2004, 17.7.2004, 3.12.2007, 17.9.2008 and 22.1.2009 to prepare paper book. No restoration application was ever moved by appellant thereafter. 2. This cross-objection was filed by Smt. Archana Srivastava and three others claimants for enhancement of compensation against same judgment and award dated 14.7.1993 in above F.A.F.O. No. 1066 of 1993 with contentions that the learned tribunal committed illegality in applying multiplier of 20 only even after coming to the conclusion that the deceased was only aged 31 years at the time of accident, and also committed illegality in not accepting the uncontroverted income of deceased as Rs. 2500/- per month. The learned tribunal acted illegality in fixing the rate of interest at 10 % per annum only while normally the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon’ble High Courts fixed 12% per annum interest from the date of petition till realisation of amount of compensation and it failed to consider the future increase in the income of deceased who was carrying on business in insurance. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on cross-objection at length and perused the findings recorded by the learned tribunal as well as evidence led by the parties in claim petition. 4. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on cross-objection at length and perused the findings recorded by the learned tribunal as well as evidence led by the parties in claim petition. 4. A perusal of impugned judgment and award dated 14.7.1993 as well as record would go to show that the claim petition was instituted by claimants Smt. Archana Srivastava and 3 others, who claimed themselves to be legal heirs of deceased Ajai Kumar Srivastava, with this allegation that on 19.2.1989 at about 8.45 P.M. the deceased was going by his scooter being No. UAI-4138 from Vivek Talkies Chunniganj, Kanpur to Nawabganj and when he reached in front of bungalow No. 9/2 of Shri S.P. Nigam by scaling the slope with moderate speed on his left side, the offending bus No. UTW6084 of U.P.S.R.T.C. being driven rashly and negligently came from behind and knocked the scooter of the deceased, as a result of which Shri Ajai Kumar Srivastava deceased fell down with his scooter and sustained fatal injuries, while driver of the bus fled away with the bus from the spot leaving the victim thereon. After having received the information the police of P.S. Colonelganj, Kanpur, reached the spot and Constable Om Prakesh Dubey brought the deceased in a jeep to the Hospital where the doctor declared him dead. The said constable also came to know of the identity of the deceased through papers found in his scooter and then he lodged F.I.R. at P.S. Colonelganj, Kanpur Nagar, on the basis of which a case at crime No. 30/89, under Sections 279, 304-A, 427, I.P.C. was registered. Post-mortem examination of dead body of deceased Ajai Kumar Srivastava was conducted on 20.2.1989 by the doctor. The claimants filed above claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act for award of Rs. 17,16,000/-. 5. U.P.S.R.T.C. opposite party filed its written statement denying the alleged accident with its bus No. UTW6084 as it was a case of total denial. It was further alleged that no accident took place with above bus in question on the said date, time and place and opposite party’s bus was not being driven in rash and negligent manner. The claimants filed their petition for excessive, exaggerated and fictitious amount of compensation. 6. It was further alleged that no accident took place with above bus in question on the said date, time and place and opposite party’s bus was not being driven in rash and negligent manner. The claimants filed their petition for excessive, exaggerated and fictitious amount of compensation. 6. The learned tribunal framed following issues on the basis of pleadings : (i) Whether any accident took place on 19.2.1989 by Bus No. UTW-6084 as alleged by the claimants? (ii) Whether the alleged accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said Bus? (iii) Whether Sri Ajai Kumar Srivastava died due to the injuries caused in the said accident? (iv) Whether the claimants are entitled to get any amount of compensation from the opposite party? (v) To what relief, if any, are the claimants entitled? 7. The learned tribunal decided issues No. 1, 2 and 3 simultaneously in favour of claimants, and on the basis of evidence on record and circumstances of the case arrived at this conclusion that the accident took place on 19.2.1989 by bus No. UTW-6084 due to negligent driving, in which Ajai Kumar Srivastava died due to injuries sustained in this accident. On behalf of claimants, P.W. 1 Deep Nigam, P.W. 2 Pravin Stiphen Das were examined, who claimed themselves to be eye witness of the scene of occurrence as they categorically stated that they saw bus No. UTW-6084 hitting the scooter of the deceased from behind. The learned tribunal found their testimony worthy of reliance as they were neither interested witnesses nor they had animus against the driver. The deceased was also not known to these witnesses before the occurrence and the papers found in the scooter of deceased could disclose his identity and thereafter the information about the accident was furnished to the father of deceased as well as P.W. 6 Constable Om Prakesh lodged F.I.R. at P.S. concerned. The learned tribunal did not place reliance on the testimony of D.W.1 Mahesh Chandra, Driver, D.W.2 Ram Kishore Conductor of bus in question, D.W.3 Mathura Prasad sender clerk and D.W.4 M.S. Ansari Booking Clerk of Fazalganj Depot. 8. The learned tribunal did not place reliance on the testimony of D.W.1 Mahesh Chandra, Driver, D.W.2 Ram Kishore Conductor of bus in question, D.W.3 Mathura Prasad sender clerk and D.W.4 M.S. Ansari Booking Clerk of Fazalganj Depot. 8. P.W. 3 Shiv Kumar Sharma, Investigating Officer, conducted investigation of the case crime No. 30/89, under Sections 279, 304-A and 427, I.P.C. and on competition of investigation he submitted chargesheet against the driver of offending bus holding that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. P.W. 4 Narendra Kumar Sharma photographer took photographs of the bus in question on 20.2.1989 and proved the same with negative of photos on the basis of which dent was found on front side and its head lights broken. P.W. 5 Head Constable, Shiv Shanker Pandey conducted technical inspection of the bus and found front portion of the bus above head light depressed. 9. The learned tribunal thus found no ground to disbelieve the testimony of above witnesses examined on behalf of claimants. It disbelieving the testimony of the witnesses of appellant- U.P.S.R.T.C. placed reliance on the testimony of witnesses of claimants and decided issue No. 1, 2 and 3 in their favour. 10. The learned tribunal held in its findings recorded on issues No. 1, 2 and 3 that Ajai Kumar Srivastava died due to injuries sustained in the accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the bus No. UTW-6084 on 19.2.1989 at Macrobertganj slope of Kanpur Nagar. This accident was caused by bus driver during his employment of U.P.S.R.T.C. which being owner of the bus and employer of driver would be vicariously liable for the act of his employee to pay compensation. It was further held on the basis of statement of P.W. 7 Ram Saran Srivastava that claimants No. 1 and 2 being wife and son as well as claimants No. 3 and 4 being parents of deceased would be entitled to get compensation. 11. Though the appeal filed by U.P.S.R.T.C. was dismissed for non-compliance of orders of Court to prepare paper book and the same was not restored so far as no application for restoration was ever moved thereafter, however findings recorded by the learned tribunal on issues No. 1, 2 and 3 do not suffer from any infirmity, factual inaccuracy or illegality. 11. Though the appeal filed by U.P.S.R.T.C. was dismissed for non-compliance of orders of Court to prepare paper book and the same was not restored so far as no application for restoration was ever moved thereafter, however findings recorded by the learned tribunal on issues No. 1, 2 and 3 do not suffer from any infirmity, factual inaccuracy or illegality. So far as the question of cross-objection filed on behalf of the claimants is concerned, the same is also liable to be decided on merits in the light of contentions raised on their behalf. 12. The learned tribunal on the basis of High School certificate found the date of birth of deceased as 1.7.1957 and his age as 31 years on the date of accident. In the claim petition, the income of deceased was shown as Rs. 3500/- per month. P.W. 7 Ram Saran Srivastava proved the fact that his son Ajai Kumar Srivastava was working as agent in L.I.C. and post office and his annual income was Rs. 40,000/- as well as he was income tax payee. The income tax return and receipts of payment made by L.I.C. as commission etc, were evident to show that his income was not less than Rs. 3000/- per month at the time of accident. 13. The learned tribunal relied on M.P.S.R.T.C. v. Sudhakar, AIR 1977 SC 1189 ,, in which multiplier of 20 was applied keeping in view the fact that the deceased had 30 years of service to be performed. He further relied on decision of Division Bench of Patna High Court in Bihar State Road Transport Corporation v. Chandreshwar Misra, 1983 ACJ 63, in which it was held that multiplier principle of determining the quantum of compensation appeared to be more sound and equitable. It would be equitable to apply normal multiplier of 16 and it might rise to a maximum of 20 in suitable cases. In Divisional Manager L.I.C., 1985 ACJ 179, it was found that an Advocate by profession was 31 years of age at the time of accident and in the circumstances of the case a multiplier of 18 was found to be adequate and proper. In Divisional Manager L.I.C., 1985 ACJ 179, it was found that an Advocate by profession was 31 years of age at the time of accident and in the circumstances of the case a multiplier of 18 was found to be adequate and proper. The learned tribunal considering the facts and circumstances of the case applied multiplier of 20 in view of the fact the superannuation age was 58 years, meaning thereby the deceased would have served for 27 years in future and the age of the his parents was 60 and 53 years respectively. 14. In the present case the learned tribunal held that multiplier of 20 would meet the ends of justice. The tribunal held that out of his monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- he would have spent one third amount i.e. Rs. 1000/- on himself if he would have survived during his remaining life time and thus the monthly income, which the deceased would have spent on his dependents, was found to be Rs. 2000/-. The yearly income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month to be spent on his dependents would come to Rs. 24,000/- and applying multiplier of 20 the total amount of compensation would come to Rs. 4,80,000/-, which was granted by the learned tribunal in instant claim petition. Considering the devaluation of money day by day and high rise in prices of essential commodities and cost of living the tribunal did not think proper to deduct one third amount in case of lump sum payment of above amount in view of principle laid down in K. Basenta and others v. Beni Gopalacharya, 1988 ACJ 126. 15. We have found that the learned tribunal has rightly assessed the income of deceased on the basis of oral evidence, income tax return and other documentary evidence. The multiplier of 20 applied by the learned tribunal in view of the age of deceased appears to be just and equitable in the light of observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court and High Courts. 16. The learned counsel for the objectors contended that the learned tribunal acted illegally in not accepting the uncontroverted income of the deceased as Rs. 2500/- per month. It appears that the learned counsel lost sight of his argument in this regard because the learned tribunal accepted Rs. 16. The learned counsel for the objectors contended that the learned tribunal acted illegally in not accepting the uncontroverted income of the deceased as Rs. 2500/- per month. It appears that the learned counsel lost sight of his argument in this regard because the learned tribunal accepted Rs. 3,000/- as monthly income of deceased on the basis of oral and documentary evidence and after deducting one third amount to be incurred as expenditure on the deceased, if he would have been alive, net income of deceased to be spent on his family was found Rs. 2,000/-, on the basis of which the amount of compensation was calculated, in which no error has been found. Thus the contention raised on their behalf in this regard is liable to be rejected. 17. So far as the question of application of multiplier is concerned, the learned tribunal did not commit any illegality in applying multiplier of 20 in view of proposition of law relating to old Act placed before him at the time of decision. Having regard to the age of deceased as 31 years at the time of accident, appropriate multiplier was applied by the tribunal. 18. In U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Trilok Chandra, 1996(4) SCC 362 , which reiterating the preference to Davies method followed in Susamma Thomas, the Hon’ble Apex Court stated that in the method adopted by Viscount Simon in the case of Nance also, first the annual dependency is worked out then multiplied by the estimated useful life of the deceased. This is generally determined on the basis of longevity. The Courts in India as well as England preferred the Davis formula as being simple and more realistic. As observed and pointed out in Susamma Thomas case, usually English Courts rarely exceed 16 as the multiplier. Courts in India too followed the same pattern till recently. Under the formula advocated by first determining the monthly income of the deceased, then deducting therefrom the amount spent on the deceased and thus, assessing the loss to the dependents of the deceased. The annual dependency assessed in this manner is then to be multiplied by the use of an appropriate multiplier. 19. Under the formula advocated by first determining the monthly income of the deceased, then deducting therefrom the amount spent on the deceased and thus, assessing the loss to the dependents of the deceased. The annual dependency assessed in this manner is then to be multiplied by the use of an appropriate multiplier. 19. We are of the view that the learned tribunal did not commit any error or illegality in applying multiplier of 20 in the present case looking to the age of deceased as well as principle laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. D.T.C., 2009 (2) TAC 677, it has also been observed in above case that one third of the income to be spent on the deceased is liable to be deducted therefrom. Similar view has also been expressed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Asha v. United India Insurance Company, 2004 ACJ 448. The Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pitam Singh and another, 2007(4) ADJ 548 (DB), has also held that deduction of one third amount from the income calls for no interference. In Bilkish v. United India Insurance Company Limited, 2008 (2) AWC 2043, the Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed similar view. The findings recorded by the learned tribunal in this regard are not required any interference. 20. The rate of interest applicable to the motor accident claim petitions generally corresponds to the rate of interest to be applied in Nationalised Banks on fixed term deposit. In the present case the learned tribunal allowed the claim petition for Rs. 4,80,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of application as laid down in various decisions of High Courts and Hon’ble Apex Court. No contrary provision of law has been cited before us. Thus the order passed in respect of rate of interest is just and proper. Undoubtedly future increase in the income of deceased was not considered by the learned tribunal in view of various factors i.e. the deceased was neither a Government Servant nor permanent employee of any private company and his income could not be deemed to be permanent up to his age of superannuation. Undoubtedly future increase in the income of deceased was not considered by the learned tribunal in view of various factors i.e. the deceased was neither a Government Servant nor permanent employee of any private company and his income could not be deemed to be permanent up to his age of superannuation. The deceased was working as agent in Insurance Company or Post Office at the time of accident and his income could be flexible in future and thus prospects of further increase in the income of the deceased was not required to be considered in calculating amount of compensation. 21. We are in full agreement with the findings recorded by the learned tribunal in this claim petition and the same are not required any interference in view of above discussions. Thus counter-objection filed by claimants lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. ————