( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) WHETHER in the facts and circumstances of this case multiplier of 15' ought to have been applied by the High Court in its impugned judgment falls for consideration in this appeal which arises out of a common judgment and order dated 29. 08. 2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra pradesh in Appeal against Order No. 528 of 2000 and C. M. A. No. 3350 of 1999.

( 3 ) BEFORE embarking upon the said question, we may notice the basic fact of the matter which is not in dispute. Claimant was aged about 38 years on the date of accident which took place on 26. 01. 1995. He was a carpenter working in a company. His monthly salary was said to be Rs. 4500/ -. He had 15 years of experience in woodcrafts. His parents, wife, two daughters and one son were dependant on him. On the night of 25. 01. 1995, he was coming back to his house. When he was riding on a two-wheeler, he met with the accident having been hit by a bus belonging to the appellant corporation. He was thrown on the road and dragged to a distance of 10 to 15 yards. He suffered serious multiple injuries, viz. , fracture of left hand (humour); fracture of left eight ribs; rupture of spleen; loss of skin and rupture of left hand; injury to haemolhorex; injury to spinal cord, injury to nerve of contracting to spleen; blunt injury to left forehead; injury to thoracic lumber; blunt injury to thigh; rupture of left calf muscle, bruises all over the body; closed brain injury with blackouts. He underwent an operation. A steel rod was inserted in his fractured hand. He became permanently disabled and lost his earning capacity. He filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short "the Act") claiming a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as damages. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 85,000/- with interest at 12% p. a.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT preferred an appeal thereagainst. The High Court by reason of the impugned judgment granted further compensation to him for a sum of Rs. 1,62,800/- in addition to the awarded compensation of Rs. 85,000/ -.

( 5 ) APPLICATION of the multiplier in a structural form was provided in the second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act. Benefit of applying such structural formula was considered by this Court in General Manager, kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs) and Others [ (1994) 2 SCC 176] wherein this Court opined:

"14. The considerations generally relevant in the selection of multiplicand and multiplier were adverted to by Lord Diplock in his speech in mallett's case where the deceased was aged 25 and left behind his widow of about the same age and three minor children. On the question of selection of multiplicand Lord Diplock observed:

"the starting point in any estimate of the amount of the "dependency" is the annual value of the material benefits provided for the dependants out of the earnings of the deceased at the date of his death. But. . . there are many factors which might have led to variations up or down in the future. His earnings might have increased and with them the amount provided by him for his dependants. They might have diminished with a recession in trade or he might have had spells of unemployment. As his children grew up and became independent the proportion of his earnings spent on his dependants would have been likely to fall. But in considering the effect to be given in the award of damages to possible variations in the dependency there are two factors to be borne in mind. The first is that the more remote in the future is the anticipated change the less confidence there can be in the chance of its occurring and the smaller the allowance to be made for it in the assessment. The second is that as a matter of the arithmetic of the calculation of present value, the later the change takes place the less will be its effect upon the total award of damages. Thus at interest rates of 4 = per cent the present value of an annuity for