JUDGMENT A.B. Pal, J. 1. Heard Mr. B. Das, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M.L. Saha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2. The aforesaid two appeals have been filed by the appellant who lost his wife and child in the same motor accident. He filed two claim cases before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (in short, the Tribunal) which were registered as T.S. No. 77 (MAC) of 1998 and T.S. No. 81 (MAC) of 1998. Both the claim cases have been disposed of by learned Tribunal by a single judgment on 28.7.2000. These two appeals having been directed against the same impugned judgment are taken up together for final disposal by a single judgment. 3. The material facts leading to the claim cases, inter alia, are that on 6.2.1998, the wife of the appellant, Sukanya Tripura and their son, Sagaria Tripura, were traveling by truck No. TR 03-1516, which was carrying certain goods of Food Department and also articles of the deceased Sukanya Tripura. While negotiating the bridge at Chapling Cherra under Natun Bazar Police Station, it met with accident as allegedly the bridge had collapsed. Both Sukanya and Sagaria died as a result of the accident. The appellant being the only survivor filed the claim case, which was contested by the owner of the vehicle and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. the insurer of the vehicle. After a full dressed trial learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 67,000 as compensation for the death of Sukanya and Rs. 62,000 for the death of Sagaria with 11 per cent interest per annum within the specified time failing which 15 per cent interest thereon from the date of such failure. Neither the owner nor insurance company have filed any appeal against the impugned judgment and award. 4. The fact situation being not in dispute the only question, we are called upon to decide in these two appeals is whether the learned Tribunal committed any error in determining the amount of compensation by not applying the settled ratio the unit formula or the structured formula provided in Motor Vehicles Act (in short, the Act). 5. Mr. 4. The fact situation being not in dispute the only question, we are called upon to decide in these two appeals is whether the learned Tribunal committed any error in determining the amount of compensation by not applying the settled ratio the unit formula or the structured formula provided in Motor Vehicles Act (in short, the Act). 5. Mr. B. Das, learned senior counsel for appellant submits that a bare perusal of the impugned judgment will show that the amounts of compensation are not only meagre, but also contrary to the evidence adduced by the appellant. In his deposition the claimant-appellant specifically stated that monthly income of deceased Sukanya was Rs. 3,000 by selling bamboo made products she was expert in manufacturing. Again, the learned Tribunal did not follow the structured formula provided in the Schedule of the Act for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation for the loss of his wife and minor son. There is absolutely no basis for awarding a ridiculous lump sum amount of Rs. 67,000 and Rs. 62,000 for the death of wife and the son respectively. 6. None has appeared for the owner respondent. Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel who entered appearance on behalf of the respondent United India Insurance Co. Ltd. fairly admits that as no cross-appeal has been filed, there is no scope at all to re-appreciate the evidence on record on the factual aspects. However, as regards the calculation of the amount of compensation his submission is that the claimant could not produce any sort of document to prove that monthly earnings of the deceased Sukanya was Rs. 3,000. Be that as it may, we have carefully gone through the evidence on record and considered the rival submissions. Even if we accept that the claimant could not adduce sufficient evidence to prove that the earnings of the deceased Sukanya was Rs. 3,000 per month, we are of the view that Tribunal could reasonably follow the structured formula given in the Schedule relating to compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. According to that formula for a non-earning person, the notional income should be Rs. 15,000 per annum. If this amount is accepted to be the income of the deceased Sukanya and 1/3rd of the amount is deducted on account of personal expenses then the annual income comes to Rs. 10,000. According to that formula for a non-earning person, the notional income should be Rs. 15,000 per annum. If this amount is accepted to be the income of the deceased Sukanya and 1/3rd of the amount is deducted on account of personal expenses then the annual income comes to Rs. 10,000. We find from the record that age of the deceased Sukanya was 22 at the time of her death and this fact is not disputed. According to the structured formula the correct multiplier for a person of this age group is 17. Therefore, multiplying Rs. 10,000 by 17, the amount comes to Rs. 1,70,000. An additional amount of Rs. 10,000 being conventional amount be added to make the amount Rs. 1,80,000 which shall be reduced by the amount already paid. 7. As regards the computation due to the death of the son, it is admitted that his age was only 2 years at the time of accident and according to the structured formula the multiplier is 15. Following the same procedure Rs. 10,000 shall be the annual loss to estate which shall be multiplied by 15 to make the amount to Rs. 1,50,000. An amount of Rs. 10,000 being conventional amount be added to make the amount of Rs. 1,60,000. This amount shall be reduced by the amount, if any, already paid and the amount they arrived at shall be the additional compensation. The total amount of compensation in both the cases shall accordingly be Rs. 1,80,000 + Rs. 1,60,000 comes to Rs. 3,40,000 to be reduced by the amount paid. This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent if it is not paid within a period of two months from today. The respondent United India Insurance Co. Ltd. being the insurer of the vehicle is directed to make the payment accordingly within a period of two months. 8. Both the appeals are allowed to the above extend. No costs. Appeal allowed.