Judgment R. S. CHAUHAN, J. ( 1 ) THE unfortunate death of Deepak Bansal in an accident, an award of Rs. 3,28,305 has not deterred the rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (henceforth to be referred to as the r. S. R. T. C. for short) from challenging the award dated 23. 11. 2005 passed by the additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that on 28. 8. 2003 Deepak Bansal was riding his motor cycle in the afternoon. A Corporation bus bearing registration No. RJ 01-P 4066, which was driven rashly and negligently, hit Deepak from behind and injured him. Deepak was immediately hospitalised, but after 2 days he died. According to the post-mortem report the cause of death was shock due to gangrene of the wound on the thighs caused by the accident. Subsequently, deepaks parents filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, jaipur City, Jaipur. The R. S. R. T. C. contested the claim petition. The Tribunal framed five issues. In order to substantiate their case, claimants have examined two witnesses and submitted 32 documents. The R. S. R. T. C. examined a single witness. After examining the oral and documentary evidence vide order dated 23. 11. 2005, the learned Claims Tribunal was pleased to award a compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal by R. S. R. T. C. before us. ( 3 ) MRS. Naina Saraf, learned counsel for the R. S. R. T. C. has raised five contentions before us. Firstly, that the F. I. R. about the alleged accident was lodged after Deepaks death. Secondly, there is no evidence to show that death was caused by the alleged accident. Thirdly, relying on the case of donat Louis Machado v. L. Ravindra, 1999 ACJ 1400 (SC), the learned counsel has argued that an unmarried person is presumed to spend 2/3rd of his earnings on his own family once he gets married, and only one-third on his parents. Therefore, according to the learned counsel loss of dependency calculated by learned Tribunal should have been only one-third of the earnings of the deceased and not 2/3rd. She has further contended that the income is on the higher side and is not supported by any evidentiary basis. Therefore, according to the learned counsel loss of dependency calculated by learned Tribunal should have been only one-third of the earnings of the deceased and not 2/3rd. She has further contended that the income is on the higher side and is not supported by any evidentiary basis. Lastly, according to her once the correct multiplier is applied it takes care of all the non-pecuniary losses suffered by the dependants. Therefore, no compensation needs to be paid to claimants for the non-pecuniary losses. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, Mr. Vivek Goyal, the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants, has argued that delay in filing of the F. I. R. cannot dilute or damage the cause of the claim. Secondly, that according to the post-mortem report itself, the deceased had died due to gangrene which had set in the wounds caused by accident. Hence, there is a direct nexus between the injuries caused by the accident and the death of the deceased. Thirdly, that according to the note appended to the Second schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 (henceforth to be referred to as the Act for short) only one-third of the income should be deducted while calculating the loss of dependency. Thus, it cannot be presumed that the deceased would have spent two-third on his own family and himself and only one-third on his parents had he survived. Fourthly, according to the father of the deceased, the deceased was working in a private firm and was earning rs. 5,000 per month, but the learned Tribunal has taken his monthly salary to be rs. 3,000. Accident occurred in the year 2003, therefore, his salary of Rs. 3,000 in the private firm is not too high, but is reasonably presumed salary by the Tribunal. Lastly, according to learned counsel, the application of the correct multiplier does not absolve the payment of non-pecuniary losses suffered by the claimants. ( 5 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned award. ( 6 ) THE delay in lodging of an F. I. R. in an accident claim case would not be fatal to the claim petition. Since Deepak was injured and was hospitalised, it is highly probable that the family was too busy looking after his medical needs. After two days he died. ( 6 ) THE delay in lodging of an F. I. R. in an accident claim case would not be fatal to the claim petition. Since Deepak was injured and was hospitalised, it is highly probable that the family was too busy looking after his medical needs. After two days he died. But, unfortunately, he died because of gangrene that set in the wounds on his thighs caused by rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Before anything could be done, the life had been sniffed out. Despite the shock and dismay at the sudden loss of life in the family, the family still mustered enough courage to lodge the F. I. R. After a thorough investigation a charge-sheet has been filed against the bus driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the first contention of the learned counsel for R. S. R. T. C. is meritless. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to the post-mortem report, the deceased died due to shock caused by gangrene which had set in, in the wounds caused by the accident. Thus, there is a direct nexus between the accident, injuries and the death. Therefore, the R. S. R. T. C. cannot absolve itself of its liability by arguing that there is remoteness of damages. According to eyewitness Vijay Shanker, aw 2, he was following the deceased when the accident took place, the accident was caused because of rash and negligent driving of the Corporation bus. Once the bus hit the motor cycle, Deepak fell off and one of the bus tyres went over his left leg. He was immediately rushed to the S. M. S. Hospital. Two days later, Deepak died. Thus, even according to the eyewitnesses, deepak received the injuries in the accident. Therefore, the death is not due to medical negligence, but due to injuries and the gangrene which had set in. Therefore, the second contention is unwarranted. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to the note given in the second Schedule to the Act, the legislature in its wisdom has clearly stated that the amount of compensation so arrived at in the case of fatal accident claims shall be reduced only by 1/3rd in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have spent towards himself had he survived. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to the note given in the second Schedule to the Act, the legislature in its wisdom has clearly stated that the amount of compensation so arrived at in the case of fatal accident claims shall be reduced only by 1/3rd in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have spent towards himself had he survived. Therefore, the only reduction sanctified by law is to the extent of 1/3rd of the salary which the deceased is presumed to spend on himself had he survived the accident. Hence, the learned Tribunal has rightly reduced the salary by one-third. ( 9 ) CONSIDERING the fact that deceased was working in the private firm in the year 2003, the conclusion that he was drawing rs. 3,000 per month is reasonable. Therefore, the presumed salary of the deceased is not too high. Hence contention of the learned counsel for R. S. R. T. C. is devoid of any merit. ( 10 ) THE application of the multiplier merely helps in calculating the loss of dependency, i. e. , the financial loss caused to the family by the death of the deceased. This is termed as pecuniary loss. But, there are non-pecuniary losses also which require compensation. The loss of love and affection, the loss of consortium, in case of spouse, are non-pecuniary losses which are to be compensated in case of fatal accident. In case of non-fatal accidents, the non-pecuniary category would include the pain and agony suffered by the claimants, the frustration, the discomfort suffered by the injured, etc. Such non-pecuniary categories re not fulfilled by application of correct multiplier. A reasonable compensation does not merely fulfil the monetary loss, but also tries to fulfil the emotional losses suffered by the claimants. The aged parents were naturally dependent on their son to look after their physical and emo tional needs during their old age. The son who would have looked after their weak bodies, their fragile emotions and their frayed psyche suddenly disappeared because of the unfortunate accident. The loss of a young man at the prime of his life is a void which is extremely difficult to fill up. And no amount of compensation can bring back the joys of having a child in the house; his laughter, his personality, his character, his ethos cannot be brought back into the vacant house. The loss of a young man at the prime of his life is a void which is extremely difficult to fill up. And no amount of compensation can bring back the joys of having a child in the house; his laughter, his personality, his character, his ethos cannot be brought back into the vacant house. Accidental claim cases cannot be dissected like an operation on an authorised patient, but need to be appreciated from the human angle of a loss to aged parents of their son/daughter. ( 11 ) IN the result, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal. The appeal having no merit is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.