Judgment NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THE claimants-appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation against the judgment/award dated 23. 10. 1997 passed by the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, district Jaipur, in Motor Accident Claim case No. 262 of 1994, whereby the learned tribunal awarded total compensation of rs. 1,54,000 in favour of the claimants-appellants in respect of deceased Arjun lal, aged about 18 years. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the claimants-appellants contended that although the deceased was bachelor and was 18 years of age, but the amount of compensation of rs. 1,54,000 awarded by the Tribunal is a meagre amount and it should be enhanced. He also placed reliance on Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer, 2004 ACJ 53 (SC) and Manju Devi v. Musafir Paswan, 2005 ACJ 99 (SC), in support of his contention. ( 4 ) I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal. ( 5 ) THE learned Tribunal while deciding issue No. 3 awarded Rs. 1,44,000 towards loss of income in favour of the parents of the deceased and Rs. 10,000 were awarded for love and affection. Thus, the total compensation of Rs. 1,54,000 has been awarded. ( 6 ) THE above referred judgments cited on behalf of the appellants were decided on the basis of facts of those cases. The present application was filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. So far as the Second Schedule is concerned, the same is not applicable strictly on the application, filed under section 166 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Second schedule is meant for application filed under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu state Trans. Corpn. Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya, 2005 ACJ 1441 (SC), observed as under: " (16) In both Susamma Thomas case, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC) and Trilok Chandras case, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), the multiplier appears to have been adopted taking note of the prevalent banking rate of interest. (17) In Susamma Thomas case, 1994 acj 1 (SC), it was noted that the normal rate of interest was about 10 per cent and, accordingly the multiplier was worked out. (17) In Susamma Thomas case, 1994 acj 1 (SC), it was noted that the normal rate of interest was about 10 per cent and, accordingly the multiplier was worked out. As the interest rate is on the decline, the multiplier has to consequentially be raised. Therefore, instead of 16 the multiplier of 18 as was adopted in trilok Chandras case, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), appears to be appropriate. In fact in Trilok Chandras case (supra), after reference to Second Schedule to the Act, it was noticed that the same suffers from many defects. It was pointed out that the same is to serve as a guide, but cannot be said to be invariable ready reckoner. . . " ( 7 ) AFTER considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission of learned counsel for the claimants-appellants, i am satisfied that the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,54,000 awarded in the present case in favour of the parents of deceased, who was 18 years of age, was just and reasonable and no interference is called for in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.