The court held that the multiplier was correctly increased from 23 to 28 by the learned single Judge, taking into account the uncertainties of life, lump sum payment, etc. The court also held that no deduction for lump sum payment was justified as the benefit of getting a lump sum is offset by the increase in prices and the progressive decrease in the value of the money.

K.C. Agrawal, J.-The accident giving rise to this appeal took place at about 9.30 p.m. on July 16,1978 near Niros Restaurant on Mirza Ismail Road, Jaipur in which Girraj Prasad Agrawal, husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 died on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of bus No. RRG 1957 belonging to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’). Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are the father and mother of the deceased.

2. A joint application for compensation was made by the heirs and dependants of the deceased Girraj Prasad Agrawal claiming Rs. 13,29,800/-as compensation. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur granted an award for Rs. 2,75,000/-. Against the said award two appeals were filed, which were numbered as Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. No. 203 of 1981 and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 177 of 1981. The former appeal was filed for setting aside the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by the Corporation, whereas the second was filed by Pista Agrawal, the wife of the deceased and other dependants of Girraj Prasad Agrawal.

3. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the bus belonging to the Corporation. It negatived the plea of the Corporation of contributory negligence to save itself from the compensation. The Tribunal by adopting a multiplier of 23 awarded compensation at Rs. 2,41,500/-.

4. By increasingthe multiplier to the figure of 28, the learned single Judge raised compensation to Rs. 3,09,000/-. This figure includes Rs. 15,000/-by way of consortium. He allowed consortium of Rs. 5,000/-to th

widow, Rs. 2,000/-to each of the children and Rs. 2,000/-each to father and the mother. He rejected the claim to further enhance compensation on the basis of mental shock, agony, physical suffering, loss of love and affection in view of the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Gyarsi Devi vs. Sain Das 1982 ACJ (Supp) 306 (Rajasthan).

5. Against the judgment of the learned single Judge two appeals have been filed, as aforesaid.

6. The questions which require our consideration are:

.(i) whether the learned single Judge committed an error in increasing the multiplier? and

.(ii) whether the learned single Judge was wrong in not deducting 25 per cent out of the compensation found

payable to the heirs of the deceased due to lump sum payment?

7. Thereare two methods of calculating compensation: one is known as the method of life span and the other

is that of multiplier.

8. In McGregor on Damages, 14th Edn., para 1289, at page 877, this aspect has been succinctly dealt with

under the sub-title ‘General Method of Assessment’ thus:

The Courts have evolved a particular method for assessing the value of the dependency, or the amount of

pecuniary benefit that the dependant could reasonably expect to have received from the deceased in the

future. This amount is calculated by taking the present annual figure of the dependency, whether stemming

from money of goods provided or services rendered and multiplying it by a figure which, while based upon

the number of years that the dependency might reasonably be expected to last, is discounted so as to allow

for the fact that a lump sum is being given now instead of periodical payments over the years. This latter

figure has long been called the multiplier; the former figure has now come to be referred to as the multiplicand.

Further adjustments, however, may have to be made to multiplicand or multiplier on account of a variety of

factors, viz., the probability of future increase or decrease in the annual dependency, the so-called

contingencies of life and the incidence of inflation and taxation. Moreover, the value of the dependency can

include not only that part of the deceased’s earnings which he would have expended annually in maintaining

his dependants but also that part of his earnings which he would have saved and which would have come to

his dependants by