JUDGMENT The appellants-claimants have preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the award passed by the Tribunal in respect of the assessment of their dependency, of the income of the deceased and the consequent compensation. It is contended by the appellants :-- (a) that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the dependency. (b) that the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 12 for calculating the amount of compensation. The appellants have also contended that the learned Tribunal did got consider the claim of the appellants towards the loss of estate. Shri M.P. Agarwal, Advocate, appearing for the insurance company has pressed the cross-objections filed by the respondent-insurance company and contended that the learned Tribunal erred in not considering the objections raised by the insurance company (a) that the offending truck, which was insured with the company, had no fitness certificate, (b) that the impugned award is too excessive and (c) that the deceased had also contributed to the accident and, as such, learned Tribunal was required to consider the contention of the contributory negligence; As such, it is submitted that the award itself was illegal and perverse. We have considered the rival contentions. The learned Tribunal on facts found that the dependency of the claimants was to the tune of Rs. 1,200/- per month. The appellants-claimants have failed to show any circumstance in that regard, which may lead to a conclusion that dependency was more than what has been held. As such, the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal is not open to challenge. As regards use of multiplier, the Schedule under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that when the age of the deceased be between 35 years to 40 years, the multiplier of 16 may be used. The Tribunal has found the age of the deceased to be 31 years. The finding is based on the statement of his wife that her deceased husband was 31 to 35 years of age. In the post-mortem report, the Doctor conducting autopsy has mentioned the age of the deceased as 35 years. In these circumstances, there was no evidence to come to a finding that the deceased was aged 31 years. To that extent, while modifying the order we hold that his age could be taken to be of 35 years or more. In the post-mortem report, the Doctor conducting autopsy has mentioned the age of the deceased as 35 years. In these circumstances, there was no evidence to come to a finding that the deceased was aged 31 years. To that extent, while modifying the order we hold that his age could be taken to be of 35 years or more. In that situation the multiplier of 16 is to be used. The learned Tribunal had also erred in applying the multiplier of 12. By applying the multiplier of 16, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,30,400/-. We hold this amount to be the amount of compensation, required to be paid to the claimants. However, we have further considered the different heads, under which the Tribunal allowed further amounts to the claimants. The Tribunal has allowed Rs. 10,000/- towards the loss of consortium to the wife-appellant No. 1 and Rs. 5,000/- to the each appellants No. 2 to 5 towards loss of love and affection. For the loss of consortium, under the Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act of 1988, the amount can only be allowed to the wife and that too in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-. The learned Tribunal has assigned no reason why the amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium was allowed. Further, under the Act, there is no provision for allowing the compensation towards the loss of love and affection. The learned Tribunal in that regard also committed mistake in law in awarding compensation to appellants No. 2 to 5 for the loss of love and affection. In view of the provisions of the Act and the Schedule, we hold that the appellant No. 1 - the wife of the deceased is entitled to only Rs. 5,000/- towards the loss of consortium and the other claimants are not entitled to claim any amount towards the loss of love and affection. On the contrary, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation to the appellants towards the loss of estate. Under the Schedule of the Act, the amount of Rs. 2,500/- for the loss of estate is permissible and should have been awarded. In view of the above discussion, we modify the award passed by the Tribunal. The amount of compensation as stated above, comes to Rs. 2,30,400/-. The amount towards of loss of consortium to appellant No. 1 is permissible to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-. 2,500/- for the loss of estate is permissible and should have been awarded. In view of the above discussion, we modify the award passed by the Tribunal. The amount of compensation as stated above, comes to Rs. 2,30,400/-. The amount towards of loss of consortium to appellant No. 1 is permissible to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-. The claimants are also entitled to Rs. 2,500/- towards the loss of estate. They are not entitled to any further amount. The total amount, as such, comes to Rs. 2,37,900/- for which the award is accordingly passed, and to that extent the appeal and the cross-objections partly succeed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to the costs. Ordered accordingly.