Multipliers cannot exceed 18 years purchase factor.

SAMPATH, J.

( 1 ) THE owner of the vehicle and the insurance company are the appellants. The above civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the award of Rs. 4,00,000 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Kancheepuram in m. A. C. T. O. P. No. 160 of 1991 filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein, claiming compensation in a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 for the death of one Shanmugavel, husband of the respondent No. 1, father of respondent nos. 2 to 5 and son of the respondent No. 6, in an accident involving the vehicle belonging to the appellant No. 1 and insured with the appellant No. 2.

( 2 ) THE case of the claimants was as follows: on 22. 3. 1991 at about 10. 00 a. m. , when the deceased Shanmugavel was on his way to the house in a bicycle, a car bearing the registration No. TSI 7346 belonging to the appellant No. 1, driven by its driver, the respondent No. 7 herein, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him causing grievous injuries to which he succumbed on the way to the hospital. At the time of his death, Shanmugavel was 30 years old. He was hale and hearty. Besides being a village postmaster earning Rs. 750 p. m. , he owned extensive lands, which he was supervising and getting considerable income for the family. The claimants filed a claim petition for Rs. 4,00,000 though according to them they were entitled to claim Rs. 6,00,000 as and by way of compensation.

( 3 ) THE appellant No. 2 insurance company resisted the petition contending, inter alia, that the driver of the vehicle drove the car at a normal speed, that at Chinnaiyan chathram bus stand two buses were standing and the passengers were alighting and getting in, that the driver of the vehicle, the respondent No. 7 was driving the vehicle, putting on the front lights and at that time another bus was coming from the opposite direction; that when the deceased was coming out in his cycle from between two buses standing in the bus stand, the car dashed against the cycle resulting in his death and that the accident was entirely due to negligence of the deceased. The appellant No. 2 further contended that in any event the claim for Rs. 4,00,000 was highly exaggerated. It also disputed the age and income and other particulars given in the petition.

( 4 ) THE driver and the owner remained ex pane. The Tribunal found, on the materials placed before it, that the accident was entirely due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the respondent No. 7. I do not find any infirmity in the said conclusion reached by the Tribunal and the same is confirmed.

( 5 ) THE larger question is with regard to the quantum. According to the claimants the deceased was employed as village postmaster besides owning extensive lands, which he supervised and got a lot of income. The Tribunal had taken into consideration all aspects and quantified the compensation and no exception could be taken to the same. It is contended by the learned counsel for the insurance company that the Tribunal had worked out the compensation improperly and had used the wrong multiplier in arriving at the compensation. The Tribunal used the multiplier of 28 and took the income of the deceased as Rs. 18,000 per year and arrived at rs. 5,04,000 towards loss of earning and since the claimants had restricted the amount of loss of earning to Rs. 4,00,000 the same was awarded by the Tribunal.

( 6 ) DECEASED was a village postmaster. The accident took place on 22. 3. 1991. At that time, he was getting Rs. 750 as salary. The salary of the village postmaster would not be stagnant. In a few years from 1991, it would have really gone up and we can reasonably assume that it would have doubled and if we take the monthly salary as Rs. 1,500 and add the salary on the date of his death and divide it by two, then his monthly salary would have been Rs. 1,125. Apart from his monthly salary he was also earning a considerable income from his agricultural properties. This is evident from the returns