Judgment Syed Md.Mahfooz Alam, J. 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by Smt. Gyanti Devi and four others against the Award dated 17.8.2000 passed in Claim Case No. 5/97 by the Additional Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal No. I, Siwan, whereby the Tribunal has granted a total compensation of Rs. 86,400.00 to the appellants for the death of one Krishna Chaurasiya caused in a motor vehicle accident. The appeal has been preferred on the ground that the quantum of compensation is much below the standard fixed by the law. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the claimants-appellants are the legal heirs and representatives of deceased Krishna Chaurasiya, who was a betel shop owner, and on the alleged date of occurrence i.e. on 11.2.96 he was sitting in his shop when truck bearing registration no. DIG-666 come there in high speed, as a result of which, the driver of the truck lost control of steering and consequently the truck over-turned and fell upon the betel shop of Krishna Chaurasia, as a result of which the said Krishna Chaurasia, who was sitting in his shop was crushed under the truck and died immediately. It is said that the monthly income of the deceased was rupees three thousand and at the time of his death he was about 40-45 years old. 3. The facts of the case are not disputed and it is also not disputed that the deceased Krishna Chaurasiya had died in a motor vehicle accident. Since the Insurance Company or the owner of the vehicle has not filed any appeal against the Award, as such, the question of scrutinising the correctness of the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the factum of accident, the negligence of driver, and determination of monthly income of the deceased does not arise. Thus, the only point which is for consideration before me is that whether the compensation has been legally assessed by the Tribunal or not. 4. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate of the appellants that the Tribunal has committed apparent mistake while deducting half of the amount from the total income of the deceased towards the personal expenses of the deceased and then again the Tribunal committed mistake by taking multiplier of eight for determining the total loss to the family of the deceased. The learned Advocate of the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has also committed illegality by not allowing compensation towards funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate. 5. As against the argument of the learned Advocate of the appellants, the learned Advocate of the Insurance Company argued that the Tribunal has rightly picked up figure eight as adequate multiplier in view of the prevailing rate of interest at the time of judgment of the court below. However, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company conceded that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted half of the amount from the total monthly income of the deceased which is not permissible under law as only 1/3rd income can be deducted towards personal expenses. 6. From perusal of the Second Schedule attached with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , for determination of compensation for third party fatal accident, it appears that the law provides that only 1/ 3rd from the total income of the deceased can be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased which goes to establish that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted half of the amount from the total monthly income of the deceased which was fixed at Rs. 1800.00 per month. Likewise, from the chart appended with the schedule it appears that for the death of a person aged between 45-50 years caused in motor vehicle accident, a multiplier of thirteen has been fixed which shows that the Tribunal has committed mistake by applying multiplier of eight. It further transpires that under law the Tribunal is bound to grant compensation at Rs. 2,000.00 towards funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000.00 towards loss of consortium and Rs. 2,500/-towards loss of estate but the Tribunal has not added those amounts in the Award. 7. Under the circumstances, mentioned above, I feel it necessary to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the quantum of compensation which is not in accordance with law and the quantum of compensation is reassessed in the following manner as provided under the Second Schedule attached with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 . Total monthly income of the deceased 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses (-) Rs. 1,800.00 Rs. 600.00 Rs. 1,200.00 Yearly income of the deceased Rs. 1,200 x 12 = Rs. 14,400.00 The deceased was aged about 45 years, as such, multiplier of 13 is taken i.e. Rs. 14,400.00 x 13 = Rs. Total monthly income of the deceased 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses (-) Rs. 1,800.00 Rs. 600.00 Rs. 1,200.00 Yearly income of the deceased Rs. 1,200 x 12 = Rs. 14,400.00 The deceased was aged about 45 years, as such, multiplier of 13 is taken i.e. Rs. 14,400.00 x 13 = Rs. 1,87,200.00 Add Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000.00 Add loss of consortium Rs. 5,000.00 Add loss of estate Rs. 2,500.00 Total : Rs. 1,96,700.00 8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 86,400.00 is enhanced and a total compensation is fixed at Rs. 1,96,700.00 which will be payable by the respondent-New India Insurance Co. after deducting the amount already paid to the applicants in satisfaction of the Award. The appellants will also be entitled to get interest @ 7.5% per annum over the remaining unpaid amount from the date of Award of the Tribunal i.e. 17th August, 2000, till the date of final payment of the compensation fixed by this court. It is observed that the Insurance Company must pay the entire remaining amount with interest within a period of three months. 9. In the result, this appeal is allowed.