JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellants are aggrieved against the low award of compensation to them vide award dated 11.10.2007 by which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand in MACT Claim Case No.298/2005 awarded compensation in total of Rs.3,71,000/- on account of death of the appellant no.1's husband and appellant no.2's father, who was of the age of 47 years. The Tribunal assessed the income of deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month and applied the multiplier of 10 and assessed the compensation for claimants as Rs.3,60,000/- on this count of loss of earning. The appellants are also aggrieved against the low award of compensation awarded on account of loss of consortium to the wife which has been awarded by the Tribunal as Rs.5,000/- and on Smt. Prem Kanwar & Anr. v. Dushyant Singh & Anr. account of loss of love and affection to the son which has been awarded by the Tribunal as Rs.2,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was of the age of 47 years only and he was engaged in marble business and the appellant's wife has given her statement to that effect and that statement remain unrebutted, therefore, the Tribunal should have considered the statement of appellant who stated that the deceased was earning Rs.1,20,000/- per annum and contributing towards the family Rs.80,000/- per annum. 4. Learned counsels appearing for the respondent owner of the vehicle and for insurance company both submitted that in number of cases, this Court had reduced the multiplier in a case where the deceased was of the age of 47 years and 43 years and, therefore, if the Tribunal has relied upon those judgments and awarded compensation by applying multiplier of 10, then the Tribunal has not committed any error of fact or law. It is also submitted that the evidence of the appellant for the income of the deceased is not sufficient and in fact, it does not prove the income of the deceased nor his working in the marble business. It is also submitted that rest of the compensation awarded Smt. Prem Kanwar & Anr. v. Dushyant Singh & Anr. is just and proper. 5. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is also submitted that rest of the compensation awarded Smt. Prem Kanwar & Anr. v. Dushyant Singh & Anr. is just and proper. 5. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The Schedule appended in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 though is under Section 163A, but it has been always taken for applying multiplier in a case for assessment of compensation to the claimants. Normally, the compensation is awarded as per the multiplier which is given in the Schedule and in cases where there are reasons for awarding low compensation than the multiplier shown in Schedule, then that can be done for the reason and since it is a case of death of young person of 47 years who had a son who was student of engineering college and according to learned counsel for the appellant, the deceased was paying his fees etc. then in that situation, when a young lady lost her husband, then their appears to be no reason to apply multiplier less than provided in the Schedule. Therefore, instead of 10, it will be appropriate to use the multiplier of 13 looking to the age of deceased. Thus, the compensation on account of loss of income comes to Rs.3000 x 12 x 13 = Rs.4,68,000/-. 7. Compensation of Rs.5000/- awarded to the wife for loss of consortium and compensation of Rs.2000/- awarded to the son for loss of love and affection, on the face of it, are no compensation. There is no fixed formula for awarding compensation for loss of consortium nor for loss of love and affection to a son but there must be some reasonableness. In the facts of the case, compensation awarded to the wife for loss of consortium is increased to Rs.50,000/- and compensation awarded to the son for loss of love and affection is increased to Rs.20,000/-. 8. Therefore, the total compensation awarded to the claimants/appellants is Rs.4,68,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.20,000/- = Rs.5,38,000/-. 9. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed and it is held that the appellants shall be entitled to Rs.5,38,000/- and shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal.Appeal allowed. *******