JUDGMENT 1. - The widowed wife and the minor children, the appellants before this Court, have challenged the award dated 02.08.1997 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur ("the Tribunal", in short) for the enhancement of meagre amount of compensation of Rs. 3,42,000/- granted by the learned Tribunal. 2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 20.09.2002, around 8.15 PM, Ramesh Kumar was standing by the side of a road, when suddenly a truck, bearing registration No. RNG 232, being driven in rash and negligent manner, hit Ramesh Kumar. Consequently, Ram (sic. Ramesh) Kumar, a youngman of only thirty-two years old, expired. While, the appellants filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal, the parents of the deceased also filed a claim petition separately before the learned Tribunal. However, both the claim petitions were decided by the impugned award dated 2nd August, 1997. In order to decide the controversy, the learned Tribunal had framed five issues. In order to substantiate their case, the appellants had examined five witnesses including appellant No. 1 (A.W. 1). They further submitted twenty documents to corroborate their testimony. The respondents neither examined any witness, nor submitted any document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted a compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 3. Mr. Ashish Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellants, has raised four contentions before this Court : firstly, according to Smt. Manju (A.W. 1) and Babulal (A.W. 2), the deceased, Ramesh Kumar, was earning about Rs.15,000/- from the artistic work on ivory and sandal wood. The work of deceased, Ramesh Kumar, was awarded not only by the State Government, but also by the National Government. Hence, his artistic talent and craftsmanship were admired not only by the Government, but more importantly by the buyers. However, the learned Tribunal has taken his income to be merely 3,150/- per month.Therefore, the income has been assessed on the lower side. Secondly, according to the law, a deceased is deemed to spend only one-third of his income upon himself. But the learned Tribunal has taken the amount spent by the deceased upon himself to be 38%, which is more than one-third as required by law. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has erroneously deducted more than one-third as the amount the deceased would have spent upon himself. But the learned Tribunal has taken the amount spent by the deceased upon himself to be 38%, which is more than one-third as required by law. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has erroneously deducted more than one-third as the amount the deceased would have spent upon himself. Thirdly, according to the Schedule-II attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, ('the Act', in short), in case the age of the deceased is thirty-two years, a multiplier of seventeen should have been applied. However, the learned Tribunal has applied only a multiplier of fourteen. The multiplier chosen by the learned Tribunal is, thus, unsustainable in the eye of law. Lastly, although the young wife has lost her husband and the minor children have lost their father, the learned Tribunal has granted merely Rs. 10,000/- for "loss of consortium" and "loss of love and affection" in total to the appellants. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the compensation so awarded to the appellants in the category of "loss of consortium" and "loss of love and affection" is too meagre to fulfil the vaccum left by the death of her husband and their father. 4. On the other hand, Mr. TP Sharma, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that there is no evidence to prove the fact that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. For, the appellants have neither submitted any income-tax return, nor any other documents to substantiate the income. Hence, the learned Tribunal was justified in concluding the income of the deceased to be Rs. 3,150/- per month. Thus, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has supported the impugned award. 5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties, have perused the impugned award as well as the record, which has been placed before us. 6. A bare perusal of the testimony of Smt. Manju (A.W. 1) clearly reveals that the deceased was an artisan and he used to work on ivory and sandal wood. She further claimed that her husband had been appreciated both at the State and the National level for his artistic work. According to her, her husband was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. A bare perusal of her deposition clearly reveals that her testimony has not been shattered in the cross-examination by the Insurance Company. Moreover, Babulal (A.W.2) has clearly stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. According to her, her husband was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. A bare perusal of her deposition clearly reveals that her testimony has not been shattered in the cross-examination by the Insurance Company. Moreover, Babulal (A.W.2) has clearly stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month. The deceased had workers working under him and the deceased was honored by the State Government as well as by the National Government. In fact, in the year 1992, he was honored by the President of India. Even Babulal's testimony has not been demolished by the Insurance Company. In the case of Smt. Kaushnuma Begum & Ors. v. The New India Assurance Co. & Ors., (2001) 2 SCC 9 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in case the testimony is not demolished, the same should be relied upon. In catena of cases, this Court had also held that in case the testimony of the claimants is not demolished, their testimony is to be relied upon and should be given effect to. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding the income of the deceased to be Rs. 15,000/- per month. Therefore, while assessing the "loss of dependency", the income of the deceased should be reduced only by one-third and the 'loss of dependency" should be taken as Rs. 10,000/- per month. Since, the law creates a legal fiction that a victim would have spent only one-third of his income upon himself, there is no justification for deducting his income more than one-third in order to calculate the "loss of dependency". Therefore, the learned Tribunal was not justified in deducting 38% of the income of the deceased while calculating the "loss of dependency". 7. As far as the multiplier is concerned, according to the Schedule-11 of the Act, a multiplier of seventeen should have been applied. Once, the Schedule had come into force, there was no reason for the learned Tribunal to rely upon the Unit Method for choosing the multiplier. This Court has no hesitation in applying the multiplier of seventeen, in place of multiplier of fourteen. 8. 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. This Court has no hesitation in applying the multiplier of seventeen, in place of multiplier of fourteen. 8. 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 the 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. Hence this Court has no hesitation to give Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant No. 1 under the category of "loss of consortium'. 9. 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 the 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? More he grows up, the more he feels his absence and more he struggles to fill the 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? 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. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to grant the compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant Nos. 2 to 4 each under the category of "loss of love and affection". 10. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the award dated 02.09.1992 is modified as under : (a) The "loss of dependency" shall be calculated as Rs.10,000 x 17 x 12 = 20,40,000/-. (c) The appellant No. 1 should be paid Rs. 10,000/- under the category of "loss of consortium" and appellant Nos. 2 to 4 should be paid Rs. 5,000 each under the category of "loss of love and affection". (d) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation amount of Rs. 20,65,000/- after deducting the amount already disbursed to the appellants. It is, further, directed to pay remaining enhanced amount within a period of two months alongwith interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e., 18.03.1993 till the date of realization. (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. 11. With these observations, the appeal is allowed.Appeal allowed. *******