Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.
1. This appeal is at the instance of claimants in a proceeding under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and is directed against an award dated 31st January, 2008, passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalpaiguri, in M.A.C. Case No. 102 of 2007 thereby disposing of the said proceeding by awarding a sum of Rs. 8,90,000/- in favour of the three claimants. The Insurance Company was directed to pay the said amount in a manner described in award within two months form the date of the award with a stipulation that in default of payment of such amount within the said period, interest on the awarded sum would accrue at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim-application i.e. 23rd April, 2007 till the payment.
2. Being dissatisfied, the claimants have come up with the present appeal.
3. The claimants are three in number. The appellant No. 1 is the widow, the appellant No. 2 is the mother and the appellant No. 3 is the father of the victim. According to the claimants, on 13th March, 2007 at about 7/7.30 p.m., the victim met with an accident involving the offending vehicle resulting in his death. According to the claimants, they were entitled to get Rs. 14,40,000/- by way of compensation. There is no dispute about the involvement of the vehicle in the accident resulting in the death of the victim and the fact that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle concerned, the death occurred. There is also no dispute that the offending vehicle was covered by the insurance of New India Assurance Company Ltd.
4. The only dispute raised in this appeal is as regards the quantum of compensation. It appears from the income-tax return of the victim for assessment year 2006/2007 that at the material point of time, the victim had income of Rs. 1,20,200/- per annum from his jute and bakery business. The learned Tribunal below after deducting one-third from the said amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- applied the multiplier of 11 after taking into consideration the age of the victim's father and added a further sum of Rs. 9,500/- and thus, the amount of compensation arrived at the figure of Rs. 8,89,500/- which was made a round figure of Rs. 8,90,000/-.
5. According to Mr. Banik, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, there was no justification of using the multiplier of 11 on the basis of the age of the father of the victim because the father of the victim although figured as claimant No. 3 was not really an heir according to Hindu Succession Act. Mr. Banik contends that in this case the widow was aged 22 years whereas the mother was aged 45 years at the time of accident and, therefore, the Court below should have awarded compensation by applying the multiplier of 18 on the basis of age of the victim and the widow. Mr. Banik further submits that the Tribunal below should have awarded interest on the awarded sum irrespective of the fact whether there is default on the part of the Insurance Company in making payment within the time stipulated by award. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the award impugned and for enhancing the same on the basis of multiplier of 18 on the annual income of the victim.
6. In view of importance of the question raised in this appeal as regards the fixation of multiplier in a case where one of the heirs is comparatively younger (22) while the other is relatively older (45) in this case, we requested Mr. K.K. Das, the learned advocate of this Court to assist us as amicus curiae. Mr. Das has accordingly placed before us various decisions of the Apex Court and one of a Division Bench of this Court indicating the views of the Courts as regards the fixation of multiplier in different sets of facts involved in those decisions. The sum and substance of the contention of Mr. Das was that in fixing the multiplier, the Court should take into consideration various surrounding circumstances including the extent of dependency, the rate of bank interest, the advantage of getting a lump sum at a time, the uncertainty of the lives of both the victim and the claimants even if the victim did not die of the accident, the possibility of the remarriage of the widow etc. But no decision was placed before us indicating the law relating to division of the compensation among the heirs and legal representatives having regard to the share each of the legal heirs inherit according to the law of intestate succession or on the face of direction given in the testamentary disposition of the victim if any.
7. Mr. Das has relied upon the following decisions:
1) Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. K.I. Bindu and Ors. reported in : AIR2005SC4425 ;
2) Manjury Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. reported in : AIR2007SC1474 ;
3) U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Bala and Ors. reported in : AIR2006SC2688 ;
4) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kalpana and Ors. reported in : AIR2007SC1243 ;
5) Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Mahadeva Shetty and Anr. reported in : AIR2003SC4172 ;
6) Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. v. Northern India Transporters' Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 1971 ACJ 206;
7) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jashuben and Ors. reported in 2008(2) TAC 12(S.C.);
8) Gobald Motor Service Ltd. and Anr. v. R.M.K. Veluswami and Ors. reported in 1958 ACJ 179;
9) Smt. Maina Devi and Ors. v. Panchu Das and Anr. reported in 2008(2) T.A.C. 219 (Cal.);
10) Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya and Ors. reported in : AIR2005SC2985 .
8. After hearing the learned advocates for the parties and Mr. Das, the Amicus Curiae, we find that the victim was aged 29 years at the time of death; his widow was aged about 22 years and his mother 45 years. As the appellant No. 3, the father of the victim, is not an heir or legal representative of the victim according to the Hindu Succession Act by which the succession of the victim was governed, in our opinion, the learned Tribunal below wrongly applied the multiplier of 11 on the basis of the age of the father which is inconsequential for choosing the multiplier. Even there was no justification of passing a direction of payment of any amount to the father of the victim. The entire compensation payable for the death of the victim should be divided between the mother and the widow of the victim in the facts of the present case.
9. The next question is what will be the proportion in which the compensation should be divided between them. According to the Hindu Succession Act, in the facts of the present case, the mother and the widow inherited the estate left by the victim in the proportion of 1:1. Question before us at this stage is whether a Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 after assessing the just amount of compensation is bound by the provision of the law of succession governing the victim if he died intestate while apportioning the amount of compensation among the heirs.
10. In order to appreciate the said question it will be profitable to refer to the Sections 166 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act which are quoted below:
166. Application for compensation.-(1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made-
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or
(b) by the owner of the property; or
(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or
(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:
Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application.(2) Every application under Sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed:
Provided that where no claim for compensation under Section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant. (3) Deleted
(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under Sub-section (6) of Section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act.
168. Award of the Claims Tribunal.-(1) On receipt of an application for compensation made under Section 166, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of Section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be:
Provided that where such application makes a claim for compensation under Section 140 in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person, such claim and any other claim (whether made in such application or otherwise) for compensation in respect of such death or permanent disablement shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X. (2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of the award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in any case within a period of fifteen days from the date of the award.
(3) When an award is made under this section, the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall, within thirty days of the date of announcing the award by the Claims Tribunal, deposit the entire amount awarded in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct.
11. After going through the aforesaid provisions of the Act, we are convinced that all the heirs and legal representatives of a victim are entitled to maintain application under Section 166 of the Act irrespective of the fact whether they were financially dependant upon the victim and that apart from a legal representative, no other person can apply for compensation under the said section even if he or she is proved to be financially dependant upon the victim. The meaning of the word 'legal representative' as used in Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure should be applied for the purpose of Section 166 of the Act. But in our view, the apportionment of the total amount of compensation assessed by the Tribunal among the legal representatives need not be distributed in accordance with the respective share of the heirs prescribed under the law of inheritance or in accordance with the mandate given in the testamentary disposition, in case the victim died leaving a Will, for the simple reason that the assessment of the amount is made based upon the period of expected tenure of life of the victim coupled with his income that would have been enjoyed by his heirs. If a victim dies leaving two heirs and legal representatives, as in this case, the mother aged 45 and the widow aged 22, the amount of compensation payable to the widow would be higher because she is younger in age and her need would last for a longer period than that of his mother and accordingly, notwithstanding the share of devolution mentioned in the law of succession, or share mentioned in a Will, in case the victim died testate, the Court should assess compensation and apportion the assessed amount after taking into consideration various factors as laid down by the Apex Court in this behalf. However, the share specified in the law of succession or the mandate of the Will cannot be ignored altogether and such share and the direction contained in the Will have definitely a role to play in assessing the compensation.
12. At this juncture, it will be profitable to refer to the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and Ors. reported in : AIR1994SC1631 where the said Court laid down the principles to be followed by a Court while assessing compensation under the Act by applying the multiplier method which has since been followed although by the Supreme Court:
The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the Multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last.
13. In the said case, the Apex Court further held as follows:
The multiplier represents the number of years' purchase on which the loss of dependency is capitalised. Take for instance a case! where annual loss of dependency is Rs. 10,000/-. If a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is invested at 10% annual interest, the interest' will take care of the dependency, perpetually. The multiplier in this case works out to 10. If the rate of interest is 5% per annum and not 10% then the multiplier needed to capitalise the loss of the annual dependency at Rupees 10,000/- would be 20. Then the multiplier, i.e., the number of years' purchase of 20 will yield the annual dependency perpetually. Then allowance to scale down the multiplier would have to be made taking into account the uncertainties of the future, the allowances for immediate lump sum payment, the period over which the dependency is to last being shorter and the capital feed also to be spent away over the period of dependency is to last etc. Usually in English Courts the operative multiplier rarely exceeds 16 as maximum. This will come down accordingly as the age of the deceased person (or that of the dependants, whichever is higher) goes up.
14. If we apply the said principles to the fact of a particular case, on the basis of the said method, the amount of compensation of a person may vary immensely depending upon the age of the heirs he left. For instance, if A having a particular income dies at the age of 29 leaving only his mother aged 45 years, the compensation may be assessed as Rs. 5 lakh (for instance). If the same gentleman A died leaving only a widow aged 22 years, the amount of compensation should be much higher although in both the cases the income of A, the victim was the same. Therefore, the further question before us is what would be the amount of the total and as well as individual compensation payable if A dies leaving both the widow and the mother, as in this case.
15. In our view, in such a situation, the procedure should be as indicated below which would not be in conflict with the decisions of the Supreme Court and at the same time, will give due regard to the law of succession to which the victim belonged or the dictate of the victim contained in the Will, if any.
16. The Court should first assess the compensation as if A died leaving only his widow and let us assume that the amount comes to Rs. X on the basis of the age of the widow and that of the victim. Then the Court should reassess the amount by considering a situation as if A died leaving only his mother and let us guess that the amount will come to Rs. Y on the basis of the age of the mother and that of the victim and such sum will be naturally less than Rs. X. The Court will then consider the position of law that the mother according to the law of succession gets 1/2 of the total estate left by the victim and the widow would get the balance 1/2 according to the law of intestate succession. Therefore, the mother should get Rs. Y/2 and the widow should get Rs. X/2 and the total amount of compensation payable by the Insurance Company should be Rs. (Y/2) + (X/2). If there are multiple numbers of heirs, the total amount will be calculated in that method, depending upon the share of each of the claimants available either according to the law of intestate succession or the mandate given in the testamentary disposition, as the case may be. For instance, if in a case, the victim leaves three heirs each having 1/3 share, the total amount payable will be Rs. (X/3) + (Y/3) + (Z/3), calculating the amount of X, Y and Z according to the age of the particular heir. If those three heirs inherit in the ratio of 1/2, 1/4, and 1/4 respectively, the total amount payable will be Rs. (X/2) + (Y/4) + (Z/4). Similarly, if a person is although a legal heir according to the law of succession yet is specifically deprived by the victim from succession of his estate by way of testamentary disposition or is given more share than the one available under the law of intestate succession, on proof of such Will in accordance with the law, the Tribunal should follow the mandate of the Will while assessing the amount of compensation payable to such heir in the above method. In the case before us, the victim, however, left no Will.
17. By applying the above principles, we first propose to calculate the amount of compensation payable to the widow of the victim.
18. The victim was aged 29 years and had businesses of jute and bakery and it appears that at a comparative young age, he well established himself in the business and was an income-tax assessee and had shown his annual net income to be Rs. 1,20,000/-. It is expected that in course of time, he would flourish in his business and the income from the business would not remain static even after the lapse of ten or twenty years. In such a situation, when we find that the victim at this young age used to earn Rs. 10,000/- a month, for the purpose of calculating the loss of dependency of the widow, we should double the income as after 30 years, when the victim would have become aged 59, the amount of income would not be the same and the value of the money in the present economic background would definitely diminish and thus, we propose to treat his income to be Rs. 20,000/- a month after deduction of income-tax which annually comes to Rs. 2,40,000/-. After deducting the one-third of the said income as his personal expenses, the amount of dependency will come to Rs. 1,60,000/- per annum. Having regard to the present-days-bank-interest, which we treat as 10% per annum for a longer period, the multiplier applicable should be 10 and the amount of compensation payable to the widow would be Rs. 16 lakh if she were the sole heir. But as she had 1/2 share in the estate left by the victim, the amount should come down to Rs. 8 lakh which should be the amount payable to the widow.
19. So far the mother is concerned, her dependency being for a shorter period, we propose to treat the income of the victim to be Rs. 1.5 lakh. After deducting one-third from that amount, the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 1 lakh. However, having regard to the age of the mother which was 45, we propose to apply the multiplier of 6 and the amount of compensation would come to Rs. 6 lakh. The mother having 1/2 share in the estate left by the victim, the actual compensation payable should be Rs. 3 lakh for the mother. Therefore, the total amount of compensation would come to Rs. 8 lakh for the widow + Rs. 3 lakh for the mother = Rs. 11 lakh with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing the application till actual payment. It is needless to mention that the running of interest would stop on the amount already paid by the Insurance Company from the date of such payment.
20. We now propose to deal with the decisions cited by Mr. Das in this case.
21. In the case of Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. (supra), the victim was aged 34 years and a upper division clerk in the Civil Supply Corporation drawing Rs. 5,843/- and a month. The claimants were the widow, two children and the mother of the victim. The Tribunal assessed the dependency at Rs. 3,896/- a month and adopted the multiplier of 17 and arrived at the figure of Rs. 7,94,784/- plus Rs. 40,000/- towards pain and suffering, loss of love and affection, transportation and funeral expenses and, thus, awarded Rs. 8,34,784/-. The High Court upheld the award. The Supreme Court, however, reduced the amount to Rs. 6,00,000/- by applying the multiplier of 13. The said decision does not lay down any fixed proposition of law as regards the application of any specific multiplier in a given case nor does it deal with the question we have faced in this case.
22. In the case of Manjuri Bera (supra), all that was decided was that in order to maintain an application for compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the applicant need not be financially dependent upon the victim and the mere fact that he or she is an heir or legal representative of the victim is sufficient.
23. In the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (supra), the victim was aged 36 years and drawing Rs. 2,300/- a month. The Tribunal deducted personal expenses of the deceased and adopted multiplier of 22 and thereafter allowed Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 5,000/- for last rites and, thus, total amount was Rs. 5,12,000/-. Although the High Court upheld the award, the Supreme Court adjusted the personal expenses of the deceased and considering the increase in salary assessed dependency at Rs. 2,000/- a month and adopted multiplier of 13 and, thus, amount was reduced to Rs. 3,37,000/-. The said decision is unable to help us in the facts of the present case as a precedent on the questions involved.
24. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kalpana and Ors. (supra), the victim was aged 33 years and a taxi driver and was also an agriculturist earing Rs. 8,000/- a month. The High Court allowed Rs. 8,16,000/- as compensation which on appeal by the Insurance Company was reduced to Rs. 4,68,000/- by assessing the dependency at Rs. 3,000/- and adopting multiplier of 13. Such multiplier was selected after taking into consideration the particular facts of the said case and cannot have any application to the case in hand.
25. In the case of Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. (supra), the victim was a commission agent aged 42 years and earing Rs. 500/- a month. The High Court enhanced the award from Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 36,000/- allowing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/- a month for 15 years. The Supreme Court upheld the said enhancement. According to the said Supreme Court decision, the Appellate Court should not interfere with the assessment unless it is unreasonable. In the case before us, as the learned Tribunal below has wrongly given compensation to the father of the victim and fixed the multiplier on the basis of the age of a person who is not even the heir we have interfered with the award on the ground mentioned by us.
26. In the case Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jashuben and Ors. (supra), the victim was aged 35 years and was working as an assistant in the Oil and Natural Gas Commission. The Supreme Court, having regard to the stability of the service and future prospect, assessed the loss of dependency by doubling the basic pay and the Dearness Allowance at the time of accident and adding to it children education allowance for two children and child bus fare and after deducting one-third as personal expenses applied the multiplier of 13. In the case before us, we have applied the principles laid down in this case as it appeared from the fact of the present case, that the victim at an young age was established in his business and a bright future was ahead of him.
27. In the case of Gobald Motor Service Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court held that the general principle in assessing compensation is that the pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing on the one hand the loss to the claimants of the future pecuniary benefit and on the other any pecuniary advantage which from whatever source comes to them by reason of the death and after balancing the loss and gain the amount should be ascertained. We, however, at this juncture, cannot lose sight of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Transport Corporation reported in : AIR1998SC3191 wherein the Supreme Court dealt with the question of adjustment of the money received by the claimants from the life Insurance of the victim in the following words:
So far as the general principle of estimating damages under the common law is concerned, it is settled that the pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing on one hand, the loss to the claimant of the future pecuniary benefits that would have accrued to him but for the death with the 'pecuniary advantage' which from whatever source comes to him by reason of the death. In other words, it is the balancing of loss and gain of the claimant occasioned by the death. But this has to change its colour to the extent a statute intends to do. Thus, this has to be interpreted in the light of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It is very clear, to which there could be no doubt that this Act delivers compensation to the claimant only on account of accidental injury or death, not on account of any other death. Thus, the pecuniary advantage accruing under this Act has to be deciphered, co-relating with the accidental death. The compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is on account of the pecuniary loss to the claimant by accidental injury or death and not other forms of death. If there is natural death or death by suicide, serious illness, including even death by accident, through train, air flight not involving motor vehicle, would not be covered under the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, the application of general principle under the common law of loss and gain for the computation of compensation under this Act must co-relate to this type of injury or deaths, viz., accidental. If the words 'pecuniary advantage' from whatever source are to be interpreted to mean any form of death under this Act it would dilute all possible benefits conferred on the claimant and would be contrary to the spirit of the law. If the 'pecuniary advantage' resulting from death means pecuniary advantage coming under all forms of death then it will include all the assets movable, immovable shares, bank accounts, cash and every amount receivable under any contract. In other words, all heritable assets including what is willed by the deceased etc. This would obliterate both, all possible conferment of economic security to the claimant by the deceased and the intentions of the legislature. By such an interpretation the tortfeasor in spite of his wrongful act or negligence, which contributes to the death, would have in many cases no liability or meagre liability. In our considered opinion, the general principle of loss and gain takes colour of this statute, viz., the gain has to be interpreted which is as a result of the accidental death and the loss on account of the accidental death. Thus, under the present Act whatever pecuniary advantage is received by the claimant, from whatever source, would only mean which comes to the claimant on account of the accidental death and not other form of death. The constitution of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal itself under Section 110, is as the Section states, ...for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to,
28. We, therefore, propose to follow the aforesaid observations of the Apex Court in the case of Helen C Rebello (supra), in the context of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as a rider to the said general observations made in the case of Gobald Motor Services Ltd (supra).
29. In the case of Smt. Maina Devi and Ors. v. Panchu Das and Anr. (supra), a Division Bench of this Court was considering a case where the victim was aged 42 years and was drawing salary of Rs. 11,453/- a month. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 7 which was not interfered with by the Division Bench. The said decision does not lay down as a proposition of law that in all cases of Section 166 of the Act, if the victim dies at the age of 42 the applicable multiplier would be 7. As would appear from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastave reported in : AIR2008SC845 , the Supreme Court approved the multiplier of 13 in a case under Section 166 of the Act where the victim was aged 45 years. The said decision of a Division Bench of this Court, therefore, does not help us in this matter as a precedent.
30. In the case of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya and Ors. (supra), the Tribunal while assessing the compensation deducted one-third of the income of the victim who died at the age of 38 for personal expenses and assessed dependency at Rs. 37,472/- per annum and adopted the multiplier of 16. The High Court upheld the award but the Supreme Court applied the multiplier of 12 and reduced the award from Rs. 6,09,552/- to Rs. 4,50,000/-. From the aforesaid decision it is clear that there is no hard and fast rule regarding selection of multiplier in proceedings under Section 166 of the Act and such multiplier should be selected after taking into consideration the various factors as stated in the case of Mrs. Susamma Thomas (supra), relied upon by us.
31. In the case of Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (supra), the Supreme Court reminded the well-settled proposition about the effect of a decision as a precedent by reiterating that every passing expression of a Judge, however eminent he might be, cannot be treated as an excathedra statement having the weight of authority. According to the said decision only thing that is binding as an authority upon a subsequent Judge is the principle upon which the case was decided. We respectfully follow the said principle and hold that none of the decisions mentioned above has really laid down any principle which has direct bearing on the facts of the present case.
32. We, therefore, enhance the compensation to Rs. 11 lakh as mentioned above. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the balance amount by issuing cheque in the names of the widow after adjusting the amount already released in favour of the appellants in accordance with the award impugned within a month from today. The amount already released in favour of the father should be adjusted first towards the dues of the mother and the balance in favour of the widow. The father is directed to refund the amount to the mother and the widow respectively within a month from today.
33. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs.
34. Before parting, we record our appreciation to the help rendered by Mr. Das who placed before us various decisions of the Apex Court fixing a variety of multipliers on different sets of facts. Those decisions have undoubtedly helped us in assessing the multiplier in the facts of the present case.
Tapan Kumar Dutt, J.
35. I agree.