JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties. At the request of both the parties, service of respondent No. 3 is dispensed with. Since a very short point is involved in this appeal, therefore, it is being disposed of at this stage. 2. It is admitted that deceased Khim Singh was of 9-10 years old and the teamed Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,40,000/- on the basis of second schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that amount awarded by the Tribunal is wrong in view of the fact that income of the non-earning member as provided in Schedule can be only Rs. 15,000/- per annum. Out of which, one third amount required to be deducted as provided in Schedule, therefore, annual income excluding the one third is Rs. 10,000/- and in case multiplier of 15 is applied, then it comes to Rs. 1,50,000/- only. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondents disputed this proposition and submitted that Schedule has been prepared and from the bare perusal of Schedule, it is crystal clear that the calculation of compensation amount has not been made by simply multiplication of income by multiplier which is clear from all the calculation given for the compensation in case Schedule. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that admittedly, the deceased was of less than 15 years' of age and income is Rs. 15,000/- annually as per Schedule as provided in notes VI of Schedule II appended with Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. There is no calculation given in Schedule for the income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum, therefore, average of the claim provided for income of Rs. 12,000/- per annum and Rs. 18,000/- per annum will be proper and appropriate compensation. According to learned Counsel for the respondents. In case of deceased upto 15 years' of age, having annual income of Rs. 12,000/-, his claim is given as Rs. 2,40,000/- and in case deceased upto 15 years' but having income of Rs. 18,000/- per annum, then claim as provided in Schedule is Rs. 3,60,000/-. The mean of Rs. 2,40,000/- and Rs. 3,60,000/- comes to Rs. 3,00,000/- and one third amount of it, if reduced, then claimant is entitled for Rs. 2,00,000/- in addition to other entitlements given in Schedule. 5. 18,000/- per annum, then claim as provided in Schedule is Rs. 3,60,000/-. The mean of Rs. 2,40,000/- and Rs. 3,60,000/- comes to Rs. 3,00,000/- and one third amount of it, if reduced, then claimant is entitled for Rs. 2,00,000/- in addition to other entitlements given in Schedule. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that Schedule appended to the Act of 1988 is defective as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Trilok Chandra and Ors., reported in A.C.J. 1996, 831 : 1996 (2) T.A.C. 286 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held as under : "We must at once point out that the calculation of compensation and the amount worked out in the Schedule suffer from several defects. For ex- ample, in item No. 1 for a victim aged 15 years, the multiplier is shown to be 15 years and the multiplicand is shown to Rs. 3,000/-. The total should be Rs. 3,000/- x 15 = Rs. 45,000/- but the same is worked out at Rs. 60,000/-. Similarly, in the second item the multiplier is 16 and die annual income is Rs. 9,000/-; the total should have been Rs. 1,44,000/- but is shown to be Rs. 1,71,000/-. To put it briefly, the Table abounds in such mistakes. Neither the Tribunals nor the courts can go by the ready reckoner. It can only be used as a guide. Besides, the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased. For example, if the deceased, a bachelor, dies at the age of 45 and his dependants are his parents, age of the parents would also be relevant in the choice of multiplier. But these mistakes are limited to actual calculations only and not in respect of other items. What we propose to empahsise is that the multiplier cannot exceed 18 years purchase factor. This is the improvement over the earlier position that ordinarily it should not exceed 16. We thought it necessary to state the correct legal position as courts and Tribunals are using higher multiplier as in the present case where the Tribunal used the multiplier of 24 which the High Court raised to 34, thereby showing of awareness of the background of the multiplier system in Davies' case, (supra)." 6. We thought it necessary to state the correct legal position as courts and Tribunals are using higher multiplier as in the present case where the Tribunal used the multiplier of 24 which the High Court raised to 34, thereby showing of awareness of the background of the multiplier system in Davies' case, (supra)." 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that compensation amount worked out in the Schedule suffer from several defects of calculation and also held that Tribunal and Courts cannot use its table as ready reckoner, but it can be used as a guide. It was also held by Hon'ble Apex Court that selection of multiplier cannot be in all cases solely dependent on the age of the deceased. Here in this case, according to learned Counsel for the appellant, the income of the deceased if accepted as Rs. 15,000/- per annum, then it is to be reduced to Rs. 10,000/- by deducting one third of annual income and multiplier of 15 be applied, resulting into compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- only. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondents relied upon the Judgment of this Court reported in National Insurance Company v. Yukta and Ors. , wherein calculation given by the appellant was accepted. It is clear from the facts and circumstances of the case deceased was of 9-10 years' age, his income is required to be taken as Rs. 15,000/- per annum and required to be reduced by one third. The Hon'ble Apex Court though found that rules suffer from several defects, but also observed that Schedule can be used as a guide. Since the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,40,000/- and even if the calculation of respondents is accepted, amount comes to Rs. 2,00,000/- which reduces award amount by Rs. 40,000/-. Here in this case, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation or reimbursement of medical expenses etc. In view of the fact that Schedule though found defective by Hon'ble Apex Court, but observed that it can be used as a guide and when determination of compensation requires some assumption also, therefore, I do not propose to reduce. the amount from Rs. 2,40,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- only in the facts and circumstances of the case and since this Court has accepted the calculation as given by learned Counsel for the respondents, while exercising the appellate jurisdiction, I am not inclined to reduce the amount from Rs. 2,40,000/- to Rs. the amount from Rs. 2,40,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- only in the facts and circumstances of the case and since this Court has accepted the calculation as given by learned Counsel for the respondents, while exercising the appellate jurisdiction, I am not inclined to reduce the amount from Rs. 2,40,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- as submitted by appellant and the claimants are entitled to Rs. 2,00,000/- only instead of Rs. 2,40,000/-. Rest of the Award is not under challenged. Hence, appeal of appellant is partly allowed. The award of Rs. 2,40,000/- is reduced to Rs. 2,00,000/-. The award amount be paid forthwith. No order as to costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******