JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant No. 1, Smt. Usha Kiran, having lost her husband, appellant No. 2, Kumari Binny and appellant No. 3, Master Lokendra Singh, having lost their father, have challenged the award dated 17.7.19977 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beawar ('the Tribunal' for short) and have prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.10.1995, Gaj Singh (the deceased) was travelling on official duty alongwith his colleagues in a jeep from Pindwara to Sirohi. On the way, a tanker, bearing registration No. G.J.-U-7062, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner collided with the jeep and pushed the jeep back into a ditch. Consequently, Gaj Singh expired. At the time of his death, Gaj Singh was employed in the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Sirohi on the post of Meter Reader-II. Since, the appellants lost their sole bread earner, they filed a claim petition for a compensation of Rs. 13,95,000/-. In Order to prove their case, the appellants examined, two witnesses including the appellant No. 1: the respondents examined a single witness. Both the sides submitted number of documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs. 2,50,400/- to the appellants. However, as the appellants are aggrieved by the said compensation amount, they have filed the present appeal for enhancement before this Court. 3. Mr. Resham Bhargav, the learned Counsel for the appellants, has vehemently raised three arguments before this Court : firstly, at the time of his death, Gaj Singh was permanently employed in Government Service as a Meter Reader-II. According to the documentary evidence, he was earning Rs. 2,980/- per month. However, while calculating the "loss of dependency", the learned Tribunal has reduced the income to Rs. 1,200/- per month. According to the learned Counsel a reduction of over 50% is unjustified. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has not taken into account the professional future prospect of the deceased. Obviously, since the deceased was employed in a Government job, during the tenure of his service, he would have received annual grade increment and benefit of higher pay-scales. Relying upon the judgment in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transportation Corporation v. Susaarnma Thomas (Mrs.) and others, (1994) 2 SCC 176 . Obviously, since the deceased was employed in a Government job, during the tenure of his service, he would have received annual grade increment and benefit of higher pay-scales. Relying upon the judgment in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transportation Corporation v. Susaarnma Thomas (Mrs.) and others, (1994) 2 SCC 176 . The learned Counsel has argued that in fact, the learned Tribunal should have doubled the income of the deceased and then reduced, it by one-third as the income the deceased would have spent upon himself and should have taken the remaining amount of two-third as spent upon the family. Secondly, according to the post-mortem report (Ex. 2), the age of the deceased was shown as twenty-eight years. According to the Schedule-II attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short), a multiplier of eighteen should have been applied. But, the learned Tribunal has applied a multiplier of only sixteen. Thus, a wrong multiplier has been applied. Therefore, the very basis for calculating the compensation is flawed. Thirdly, the learned Tribunal has directed the payment of a consolidated amount of Rs. 20,000/- for the performance of the last rites for "loss of love and affection" and "loss of consortium". According to the learned Counsel, the loss of husband and of a father is a phenomenal loss, yet a meagre amount of Rs. 20,000/- or less has been paid as compensation for the said loss. Therefore, the compensation in the category of "loss of consortium and "loss of love and affection" deserves to be enhanced. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Satyendra Sharma, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3. has argued that according to the evidence available on record, the deceased had also a widowed mother, who has not been arrayed as a claimant. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in reducing the multiplier from eighteen to sixteen. Secondly, by applying the multiplier system, the future prospects are taken care of, Lastly. the compensation of Rs. 20.000/- on account of "loss of consortium" and 'loss of love and affection" is more than sufficient for the appellants. 5. We have heard both the Counsels for the parties and have perused the impugned award. 6. The multiplier system was introduced in 1994 by the Schedule-II to the Act. the compensation of Rs. 20.000/- on account of "loss of consortium" and 'loss of love and affection" is more than sufficient for the appellants. 5. We have heard both the Counsels for the parties and have perused the impugned award. 6. The multiplier system was introduced in 1994 by the Schedule-II to the Act. The said system was brought into the statute not only to give uniformity to the assessment of compensation, but more importantly to take care of the future prospects of the claimants. Hence, once the multiplier system is applied in a given case, there is no need to double the income as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants. After introduction of the multiplier system, law does not permit the doubling of the income. For, both systems are applied, then the claimants receive the double benefit. On the one hand by doubling of the income, the future prospects are covered, yet on the other hand by applying the multiplier system, equally the future prospects are also covered. Therefore, this Court is not convinced by the arguments that the income of the deceased should have been doubled while calculating the "loss of dependency." 7. However, there is force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants that as the income received by the deceased was Rs. 2,980/- the learned Tribunal could not have reduced the income of the deceased to Rs. 1.200/-. The Schedule-II, attached to the Act, creates a legal fiction that the deceased has spent only one-third of his income upon himself. Therefore, the Schedule-II permits the reduction of the income by only one-third and the payment of two-third of the income to the claimants' family. Therefore, the Schedule-II permits the reduction of the income only by one-third. Thus, the learned Tribunal was not Justified in reducing the salary of the deceased by over 50%. In fact, the learned Tribunal should have reduced the income from Rs. 2,980/- to Rs. 2,020/-. 8. The Schedule-11 clearly states that if the age of the deceased is between twenty-five to thirty, a multiplier of eighteen has to be applied. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was twenty-eight years at the time of his death. Therefore, there is no reason for the learned Tribunal to have applied a multiplier of sixteen, instead of a multiplier of eighteen. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was twenty-eight years at the time of his death. Therefore, there is no reason for the learned Tribunal to have applied a multiplier of sixteen, instead of a multiplier of eighteen. Merely because, the mother of the deceased was not arrayed as a party would not justify the application of a wrong multiplier. Hence, there is no justification for the application of the wrong multiplier. 9. The Tribunal should be sensitive towards their responsibility vis-a-vis the claimants. While assessing the compensation In the category of "loss of consortium and "loss of love and affection", the learned Tribunal should be aware of the harsh reality of this country. It is a known secret that widowed women are at time abandoned by in-laws and forgotten by the society. The life of a widow in India is a life of struggle, a life of tragedy, a life of apathy and a life of gloom. Despite all this, the widow has the onerous task of not only bringing up the children, but also educating them, getting them married and settling them in their lives. In these circumstances, she is bound to feel the pangs of separation, the emotional, the financial, the physical vacuum left by sudden departure of the husband. The "loss of consortium is not to be dealt with as an act of pity, but is a solemn task to be performed by the Tribunal towards the helpless widow. Although, the void left by the husband can never be filled by a monetary compensation, but a token compensation of a meagre amount is an insult to the sensibilities and the rights of a widow. Therefore, while calculating the compensation under the category of "loss of consortium" the learned Tribunal has to be sensitive to the realities of this country. 10. Similarly, for small children, who have lost their father in a sudden accident it is a traumatic experience which the innocent child is unable to realise and unable to express. On one fine morning, the child finds that his father missing in the house and he does not understand or comprehend his absence. More he grows up, the more he feels his absence and more he struggles to fill that void. Financially crushed, psychologically crippled, emotionally hurt the child of single parent struggles with the everyday life. On one fine morning, the child finds that his father missing in the house and he does not understand or comprehend his absence. More he grows up, the more he feels his absence and more he struggles to fill that void. Financially crushed, psychologically crippled, emotionally hurt the child of single parent struggles with the everyday life. Neither theologically, nor philosophically, nor practically does he have any answer for why fate cruelly snatching his/her father at a young age of twenty-eight years? The grant of compensation under the category of "loss of love and affection" is not a ceremony to be performed; it is a legal duty to be observed solemnly by the learned Tribunal. In these circumstances, it is rather surprising that the learned Tribunal has clubbed "the loss of consortium", "the loss of love and affection" with "the funeral expenses" incurred by the bereaved family, as though, it was paying for a list of groceries at a kirana shop. The judicial officers, who are the arch-angle of the rights of the people, need to evolve as highly sensitive human beings who should understand and comprehend the suffering of the people. After all, if judicial work is a pious and divine duty, the judicial officers must compassionately to understand the agony and the pain of the litigants. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding the compensation of Rs. 20,000/- is merely paying only lip service to the loss suffered by the appellants. 11. In the result, this appeal is allowed with the following directions:- (a) The loss of dependency shall be calculated as. 2020 x 12 x 18 = 4,36,320/-. (b) The appellant No. 1 should be paid Rs. 20,000/- under the category of "loss of consortium". (c) The appellant Nos. 2 and 3 should be paid Rs. 15,000/- each for the loss of "love and affection". (d) The insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation amount after deducting the amount already disbursed to the appellants. It is, further, directed to pay the remaining enhanced amount within a period of two months alongwith interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of this appeal i.e. 13.10.1997 till the date of realisation. (d) The insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation amount after deducting the amount already disbursed to the appellants. It is, further, directed to pay the remaining enhanced amount within a period of two months alongwith interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of this appeal i.e. 13.10.1997 till the date of realisation. (e) The learned Tribunal is directed to ensure that the appellants are granted the enhanced compensation amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. (f) The said amount shall be handed over to the appellant No. 1, who shall invest and utilise the said compensation amount to the best of her abilities and in the interest of the minor children. 12. With these directions, the appeal is allowed.Appeal Allowed. *******