The court adjusted the compensation amount based on the deceased's prospective earnings and the father's age, and allocated liability for payment between the parties involved.

( 1 ) THE accident took place on 29. 9. 1967. The Tribunal has found on evidence that the two vehicles DLK 1348 and DLP 1096 were responsible for the accident and the eventual death of Harish Pal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 18,000. 00 as compensation. The claim was preferred by the father, the mother and the grandfather of the deceased. The mother and the grandfather have died during the pendency of this appeal. The father is alive and is 77 years old. I have been taken through the evidence and I am satisfied with the Tribunal s finding that both the vehicles mentioned were responsible for causing the accident. I also agree with the Tribunal that the liability of the two vehicles would be half and half. Vehicle No. DLK 1548 was insured with the Commonwealth Assurance Co. Ltd. , now known as New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

( 2 ) THE D. T. C. , to whom vehicle No. DLP 10% belonged, has filed the present appeal, diswning their responsibility in the matter. I am satisfied with the evidence on record that vehicle No. DLP 1096 was one of the offending vehicles causing the vital accident in this case. The appeal of the D. T. C. is, therefore, rejected.

( 3 ) THERE are cross-objections filed by the respondents in this case. It is claimed in the claim petition that the claimants were entitled to Rs. 2. 00 lakhs as compensation. The deceased was 21 years of age at the time of the accident and was a student studying in the IInd year of B. Com. The Tribunal has taken Rs. 100. 00 as the would be contribution by the deceased towards his family. The Tribunal has also applied the multiplier of 15 years. I find that on both these counts the Tribunal was in error. The Tribunal has not considered the prospective earnings of the deceased. Even if it was assumed that after B. Com. he had got a clerical job, it is safe to assume that he would have contributed at least Rs. 200. 00 to his family over this period. The father of the deceased is alive and 77 years old. The Tribunal was, therefore, wrong in applying the multiplier of 15. Considering all the facts on record, I feel that the multiplier of 25 is reasonable in this case. The claimants would thus be entitled to Rs. 60,000. 00 as compensation. The claimants are also entitled to 6 per cent simple interest from 1. 3. 1970 till the date of payment. The D. T. C, and the insurance company are liable to pay half of the compensation amount and half of the interest amount each.

( 4 ) THE appeal is dismissed. The cross objections filed by the car owner Gyani Tarlochan Singh and the insurance company are also dismissed. The cross-objections filed by the claimants are partially allowed. Appeal dismissed.