V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of LPA Nos. 122 and 123 of 1999. Initially, the matter arose out of a claim made before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras by the legal representatives of one Thangaraj who met with an accident on 2.2.1991 and was killed. Thangaraj left behind him his wife and two minor children., they being one T. Kannammal, T. Mani and T. Kumudha. In that accident, one J. Srinivasan, a boy of 19 years was also injured. Two separate applications came to be filed for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, they being, OP Nos. 709 and 710 of 1991. Both the petitions were decreed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,70,000/-as compensation with 15% interest from the date of the petition till the date of deposit in O.P. No. 709 of 1991, the petition filed by the legal representatives of Thangaraj and awarded a sum of Rs. 60,000/-with 15% interest in O.P. No. 710 of 1991 which was filed by Srinivasan who was injured. Both sides appealed against this common award. So also cross-objections were filed by the parties.

2. Learned single Judge before whom the matter was finalised, however, reduced the award of compensation to the legal representatives and limited it to Rs. 2,25,000/- with 12% interest per annum while in the case of compensation awarded to Srinivasan also it was reduced from Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- with interest at 12% per annum. The present appeals challenge this common judgment.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants made it clear that he would restrict himself to the quantum of compensation as the question of liability on the part of the respondent is no more open and has been finalised by the High Court. In so far as the compensation is concerned, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants pointed out that the award passed by the Tribunal as also the learned single Judge ignored some vital factors which affected the quantum of compensation. Learned counsel invited our attention to the fact that the deceased was earning Rs. 60 per day at the time when he died. However, there is evidence on record that even in the year 1994 masons used to get Rs. 80 per day. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that tie deceased was working as a mason and would have earned much more than Rs. 60/-. However, the Tribunal took in to account the income on the date of death alone and did not give any scope for increase in the income which was inevitable. Learned counsel then points out that the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 25. Learned counsel fairly conceded that this was incorrect as the total multiplier which could have been applied, could not have exceeded 18 as per the recent decision in U.P. Stale Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra (1996 ACJ 831). However, the learned counsel further points out that even the High Court has while deciding the compensation applied the multiplier of 12. Learned counsel is at pains to point out that at the time of his death, the deceased was barely 33 years old and was a man in robust health and as such would have expected to live long. According to the learned counsel, the application of multiplier of 12 by this Court was totally incorrect. Learned counsel points out that the High Court had erred in not awarding the compensation on the basis of the future income also. We have been extensively taken through the judgment of the learned single judge by the learned counsel for the appellants.

4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has justified the award relying mainly on the reported decision in G.M. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas ((1994 ACJ 1). Learned counsel for the respondent also urged that the court has correctly taken into consideration the fact and even the amount that would have been spent by the deceased. In short, learned counsel for the respondent supports only the order of the learned single Judge. From the order, we find that the learned single