Judgment JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals have been filed against the judgment/award dated 11. 10. 1995 passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur in M. A. C. T. Case Nos. 1741 and 1742 of 1992 for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The m. A. C. T. Case No. 1741 of 1992 was filed in respect of death of late Ajeet Vyas whereas M. A. C. T. Case No. 1742 of 1992 was filed in respect of injury sustained by claimant Sujata, wife of late Ajeet Vyas. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 7,35,000 in respect of death of Ajeet vyas whereas Rs. 51,200 was awarded for the injuries sustained by Sujata. ( 2 ) COUNSEL for the appellants Mr. H. M. Bhargava contended that as per finding of the Tribunal itself, the age of deceased was 28 years. The Tribunal has recorded a finding about income of the deceased as of rs. 6,000 per month and after considering his future prospects, a sum of Rs. 9,000 was determined as monthly income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. Out of it, 1/3rd amount was deducted on account of personal expenses of deceased and dependency was treated as Rs. 6,000 per month. His contention is that Tribunal calculated the amount of compensation by applying multiplier of 10, whereas as per Second schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles act, 1988, the multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied by the Tribunal. The counsel for appellants has not challenged the finding of Tribunal in respect of income and age of the deceased and his contention is only in respect of proper application of multiplier as per Second Schedule. In respect of another appeal relating to injuries sustained by Sujata, his contention is that she remained in coma for about 27 days in SMS Hospital, Jaipur, thereafter, she further remained for about 13 days in delhi Army Hospital. The documentary evidence in this regard has been placed on record. She was income tax payer but tribunal awarded total compensation under all heads as Rs. 51,200 which is meagre amount, therefore, it should be adequately increased. ( 3 ) COUNSEL for the respondent insurance company submits that looking to the age and income of the deceased, the amount of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable. She was income tax payer but tribunal awarded total compensation under all heads as Rs. 51,200 which is meagre amount, therefore, it should be adequately increased. ( 3 ) COUNSEL for the respondent insurance company submits that looking to the age and income of the deceased, the amount of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable. He submits that the tribunal has already increased the income of the deceased from Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 9,000 after considering his future prospects, therefore, multiplier of 10 applied by the Tribunal is proper. He further submits that so far as injury sustained by Sujata is concerned, the tribunal has awarded Rs. 25,000 for loss of income and Rs. 25,000 for mental agony and Rs. 1,200 for medical bills, therefore, amount of award is just and reasonable. ( 4 ) I have considered the rival submissions and examined the impugned judgment dated 11. 10. 1995 and also the record of the Tribunal. ( 5 ) THE Tribunal while deciding issue no. 3 has recorded a finding that age of the deceased was 28 years at the time of accident. So far as income of the deceased is concerned, the Tribunal considered that the deceased had passed B. A. (Hons) and mba from United States. He got education from famous Elphiston College and after doing MBA from the University of U. S. A. he worked as Branch Manager of Citi Bank in Washington. The Tribunal has also considered the statements of Rakesh Nathani, aw 1, Sujata, AW 4 and H. N. Hoon, AW 5, who had stated that the deceased was working as executive in the bank before returning to India. He was drawing salary of 30,000 dollar per year in addition to other allowances. After considering oral and documentary evidence, the learned tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000 and after considering future prospects determined his monthly income as Rs. 9,000. 1/3rd amount was deducted towards his personal expenses. The amount of compensation was calculated at the rate of Rs. 6,000 per month. The multiplier of 10 was applied. After considering oral and documentary evidence, the learned tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000 and after considering future prospects determined his monthly income as Rs. 9,000. 1/3rd amount was deducted towards his personal expenses. The amount of compensation was calculated at the rate of Rs. 6,000 per month. The multiplier of 10 was applied. Although, the Second Schedule under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not applicable in each and every case relating to compensation under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act but in some cases, honble Apex Court has taken a view that it is safe to apply multiplier mentioned in the Second Schedule under section 163-A in the case relating to compensation under section 166 also. The age of the deceased was admittedly 28 years at the time of the accident. As per Second Schedule, the multiplier of 18 has been mentioned in respect of victim above 25 years of age but not exceeding to 30 years. Therefore, the multiplier of 10 as applied by the Tribunal cannot be said to be adequate in any manner, therefore, the proper multiplier which should have been applied in this case was 18 and the same is applied and the total compensation is calculated as Rs. 6,000 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 12,96,000. Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000 for loss of consortium which remains unchanged. Therefore, the total amount of compensation comes to rs. 13,11,000 (Rs. 12,96,000 + Rs. 15,000 ). A sum of Rs. 7,35,000 has already been paid to the claimants, therefore, respondent company will now make payment of remaining amount. ( 6 ) SO far as injury sustained by Sujata is concerned, it is clear that she remained in coma for about 27 days in SMS Hospital, jaipur, thereafter she remained admitted in delhi Army Hospital for about 13 days, she was income tax payer, therefore, under all heads including loss of income, it is just and proper to enhance the amount of compensation from Rs. 51,200 to lump sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000. ( 7 ) CONSEQUENTLY, both the appeals are allowed. The judgment/award passed by the learned Tribunal dated 11. 10. 1995 is modified. In C. M. A. No. 912 of 1996 the amount of compensation is enhanced from rs. 7,35,000 to Rs. 51,200 to lump sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000. ( 7 ) CONSEQUENTLY, both the appeals are allowed. The judgment/award passed by the learned Tribunal dated 11. 10. 1995 is modified. In C. M. A. No. 912 of 1996 the amount of compensation is enhanced from rs. 7,35,000 to Rs. 13,11,000 and in the c. M. A No. 712 of 1996, the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 51,200 to Rs, 1,00,000. The amount awarded by tribunal has already been paid to claimants, therefore, the respondent company is directed to deposit the balance/enhanced amount in the Tribunal. This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim application, i. e. , 14. 9. 1992 till the date of deposit in the Tribunal. The counsel for respondent company wants time to deposit the same. Two months time is allowed to deposit the enhanced amount along with interest as mentioned above. In C. M. A. No. 912 of 1996, the Tribunal is directed to deposit 75 per cent of enhanced amount in the name of Sujata [up to Rs. 3,00,000 in monthly income scheme (M. I. S.) and remaining in FDR in post office] and remaining 25 per cent in the name of Laxmi devi Vyas and Dr. Vijay Shankar Vyas in m. I. S. of post office for a period of six years. In C. M. A. No. 712 of 1996, the entire amount shall be deposited in the name of Sujata in M. I. S. of the post office for a period of six years. The claimants are allowed to withdraw interest on the said amount on quarterly/monthly basis on the said F. D. R. /m. I. S. and full amount on its maturity. No order as to costs. Appeals allowed.