DIPAK MISRA, J. ( 1 ) IN this appeal preferred under section 173 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the claimants, the legal representatives of deceased Manohar Lal have called in question the propriety of the award dated 18. 1. 95 passed by the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, in motor Claim Case No. 10 of 1994. ( 2 ) THE facts as have been unfolded are that on 18. 12. 1993, the deceased Manohar lal was proceeding on his scooter from bhopal to Bairagarh and deceased Asann das was sitting on the scooter as a pillion rider. The offending mini bus bearing the registration No. NP-04-F-350 belonging to jassumal, respondent No. 1 and driven by ramesh Kumar, respondent No. 2 came from behind and dashed against the scooter and Manohar Lal sustained injuries and finally succumbed to the same. The claimants filed a claim petition before the tribunal contending, inter alia, that the deceased was aged about 32 years and had worked as a cashier in Punjab National Bank for some time before the accident. They had put forth that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 3,000 per month and he was also running a medical store with his brother from which he was getting Rs. 4,000 per month. Asserting these facts a claim of rs. 10,67,000 was put forth by the claimants. ( 3 ) THE claim of the claimants was resisted by the owner and driver of the vehicle on the ground that the accident had occurred due to negligence of the scooterist and, therefore, no compensation was payable. ( 4 ) THE insurance company also combated the claim of the claimants. The tribunal framed as many as three issues and came to hold that the deceased was not at fault for causing the accident and the driver of the mini bus was rash and negligent. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the certificate of income which was produced by the claimants was of the Punjab National Bank related to the year 1991 and was given on 19. 7. 94 and, therefore, on the date of the accident the deceased was not working as a cashier in the Punjab National bank. The Tribunal did not accept the plea of the claimants that the deceased was running a medical store, from which he was getting an income of Rs. 7. 94 and, therefore, on the date of the accident the deceased was not working as a cashier in the Punjab National bank. The Tribunal did not accept the plea of the claimants that the deceased was running a medical store, from which he was getting an income of Rs. 4,000 per month. However, taking into consideration that the deceased had worked as a cashier in the Punjab National Bank and was maintaining his family, the Tribunal fixed the income at Rs. 15,000 per year. The Tribunal determined the yearly contribution at rs. 9,000 and applied the multiplier of 15. It also granted Rs. 5,000 towards consortium as one of the claimants was wife of the deceased. Adopting this method of computation, the Tribunal determined the compensation at Rs. 1,40,000. ( 5 ) IMPUGNING the aforesaid award Mr. S. D. Khan, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the determination by the Tribunal with regard to the monthly income is grossly low inasmuch as the deceased was shown to be an employee of the Punjab National Bank for some years before the accident and had potential to earn more and, in fact, was maintaining a good standard of living. The learned counsel has criticised the finding of the tribunal for placing reliance on the Schedule provided under section 163-A of the Act on the ground that ample evidence had been adduced to justify the income by the claimants. It is further contended by Mr. Khan that the multiplier of 15 is erroneous inasmuch as the deceased was hardly 32 years of age and, therefore, proper multiplier should have been 17. Mr. Sunil Jain, learned counsel for the insurance company, the respondent No. 3 herein, has submitted that the Tribunal has correctly decided the controversy and the same does not warrant any interference by this court in this appeal. ( 6 ) THE singular issue that calls for determination is the fixation of quantum. We have perused the reasonings of the Tribunal. Rightly, the Tribunal has not accepted the plea regarding salary as put forth by the claimants, as far as the deceased is concerned, for the simple reason that by the time the accident had taken place the deceased was no more in employment of the Punjab National Bank. We have perused the reasonings of the Tribunal. Rightly, the Tribunal has not accepted the plea regarding salary as put forth by the claimants, as far as the deceased is concerned, for the simple reason that by the time the accident had taken place the deceased was no more in employment of the Punjab National Bank. In absence of any document that the deceased was running a medical store, the Tribunal has held that it was not possible to accept that he was earning Rs. 4,000 per month. True it is that the claimants had utterly failed to substantiate their claim of Rs. 4,000 per month as income from the medical store, but it cannot be said that he was earning rs. 1,250 per month. We are of the view that determination of monthly income by the Tribunal is grossly low. Considering the erstwhile status of the deceased, his involvement in medical store and the number of family members he was sustaining, we are of the considered view that income of the victim should be fixed at Rs. 2,000 per month. He must have been spending 1/3rd on himself and, therefore, monthly support to the family would be Rs. 1,350 and per year Rs. 1,350 x 12 = Rs. 16,200. As he was aged about 32 years, multiplier of 17 would be applicable. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 16,200 x 17 = Rs. 2,75,400. To this, loss of consortium of Rs. 10,000 and funeral expenses of Rs. 2,000 are to be added. Thus, the claimants in toto would be entitled to get Rs. 2,87,400. The aforesaid amount shall be paid by the respondent no. 3 within a period of three months from today, failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. ( 7 ) THE appeal is allowed in part. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Certified copy of this order may be made available to the learned counsel for the parties on the payment of necessary charges. Appeal partly allowed. .