Suresh Kait, J.

1. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties have submitted that the only issue involved in all these appeals is that whether the multiplier to be ascertained on the basis of age of the deceased or on the basis of age of the claimants? Accordingly, these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Mr. O.P. Mannie, learned counsel appearing for the claimants invited the attention of this Court to the various judgments of the Apex Court as under:-

(i) UPSRTC v. Trilok Chandra, 1996, ACJ 831 SC;

(ii) Fakeerappa v. Karnataka Cement, 2004, ACJ 699 SC;

(iii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Pathak 2007 10 SCC 1;

(iv) Bilkish v. United India Insurance, 2008 ACJ 1357 SC;

(v) Sarla Verma v. DTC and Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 121;

(vi) P.S. Somanathan v. Distt. Insurance Officer, 2011 ACJ 737 SC;

(vii) Amrit Bhanushali v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2012 (6) SCALE 1;

(viii) Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65; and

(ix) M.Mansoor v. United India insurance co. Ltd., 2013(12) SCALE 324.

Learned counsel submitted that the criteria for selection of multiplier is on the basis of age of the deceased.

3. On the other hand, Ms. Suman Bagga, learned counsel appearing for the respondent /Insurance Company referred various judgments of the Apex Court as under:-

(i) General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176;

(ii) Nance v. British Columbia Electric Supply Co. Ltd.; 1951 AC 601;

(iii) UPSRTC v. Trilok Chandra (1996)4SCC362;

(iv) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Pathak 2007 10 SCC 1;

(v) Ramesh Singh and Anr. v. Satbir Singh and Anr. 2008 2 SCC 667;

(vi) Sarla Verma Vs. DTC and Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 121; and

(vii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shyam Singh and Ors., 2011 7 SCC 65

Learned counsel submitted that the selection or choice of multiplier would be based either on the age of the deceased or age of the claimants whichever is higher.

4. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the record.

5. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is a beneficial piece of legislation; therefore as per ‘Rule of Law’, the provisions of law shall be interpreted in favour of the victims. Sections 163A and 166 of M.V. Act, 1988, enables the victim or the legal representative of victim, as the case may be, to claim compensation; and the rules for assessing the compensation are formulated on the concept of ‘just compensation’, as envisaged under Section 168 of M.V.Act.1988.

6. In order to assess just compensation, various parameters are prescribed under different accounts and heads. Basically, pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages are to be assessed, wherein the computation of loss of dependency is an important factor in the process of assessing the former. Importantly, the ascertainment of loss of dependency is based on two components, namely, ‘multiplicand’ and ‘multiplier’.

7. In these appeals, an important point arises for consideration is in respect of the selection of multiplier.

8. Before adverting to the specific point of the selection of multiplier, it is important to discuss the multiplier method of assessment; and its applicability and acceptance in the concept of ‘just compensation’.

9. The component of ‘multiplier’ indicates the actual purchasing capacity of the deceased in terms of the number of years, wherein the multiplicand is to be capitalized. Therefore, the application of ‘multiplier method’ is considered to be fair and reasonable in the process of assessment of damages. The Apex Court in the case of KSRTC vs. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176, analyzed different aspects of the selection of multiplier by placing reliance upon various decisions and principles.

“11. It is necessary to reiterate that the multiplier-method is logically sound and legally well-established. There are some cases which have proceeded to determine the compensation on the basis of aggregating the entire future earnings for over the pe