JUDGMENT : S.R. Singharavelu, J. - Claimants are the Appellants. They are respectively the widow and the mother of deceased Aditya Kumar Jena. Since in this appeal there is no dispute regarding the factum of accident, I am not going in detail about the facts in that regard. 2. Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the Respondent-Insurance Company only opposes the quantum of the award by saying that it is huge and excessive. As I have mentioned earlier, the accident was admitted. In that regard, I have also perused the connected FIR, report of the MVI and the post-mortem documents from which one can understand that the age of the deceased was 35 at the relevant time. From the evidence of P.W.1-claimant-Appellant No. 1 and Anr. witness examined as P.W.2, it is clear that the deceased was working in a Mill. Originally it was claimed that the deceased was a Proprietor of a Mill but ultimately from the evidence on record it is deducible that he was a working member of the said Mill and thus earning a monthly income of Rs. 1,500/-. After deducting one-third, the monthly income should have been taken as Rs. 1000/-, but having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has fixed the loss of income at Rs. 800/- per month. This is permissible in view of the fact that the damages to be awarded to a dependant of a deceased person under the Fatal Accidents Acts shall be upon taking into account of any pecuniary benefit accruing to that dependant in consequence of the death of the deceased and it is the net loss and balance which constitutes the measure of damages. In this context, learned Counsel for the Respondent cited a decision of the apex Court in the case of The Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd. v. K.I. Bindu and Ors. 2005(7) Supreme 171 and drew my attention to certain words adopted by Lord Wright in the case of Davies v. Powell Deffregn Associated Collieries Ltd. 1942 AC 601, which has been followed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. 2005(7) Supreme 171 and drew my attention to certain words adopted by Lord Wright in the case of Davies v. Powell Deffregn Associated Collieries Ltd. 1942 AC 601, which has been followed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. The said words are as follows: The actual pecuniary loss of each individual entitled to sue can only be ascertained by balancing on the one hand the loss to him of the future pecuniary benefit, and on the other any pecuniary advantage which from whatever sources comes to him by reason of the death. 3. Therefore, even though the calculated loss of income after 1/3rd deduction comes to Rs. 100/- per month, the Tribunal was correct in ascertaining the sum as Rs. 800/- by taking into consideration all the other prevailing circumstances in this case. 4. Similarly the multiplier for person aged 35 according to the second schedule of the Act would be 17. The Tribunal has taken it as 10. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is lower) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last. 5. By applying the observation made in the aforesaid decision of the apex Court and also by considering the fact that actually the second Schedule of the Act suffers from many defects as pointed out by the apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, for a man of 34 years, the multiplier was taken as 13 after due consideration of the other prevailing circumstances and the fact that the table found in the second Schedule of the Act cannot be said to be an invariable ready reckoner but it might serve only as a guide, ultimately what is awardable is only the just compensation and not the exact mechanical and arithmetical calculation with the table under the age. 6. 6. Therefore, in this case also the multiplier cannot be fixed as low as 10 and not as high as 17, but at 13 as was observed in Trilok Chandra's case (supra). 7. If we take into consideration the multiplier of 13 and the monthly loss of income as Rs. 800/-, the only loss is Rs. 9600/-. Applying the multiplier 13, it comes to Rs. 1,24,800/-. The widow is entitled for a loss of consortium at Rs. 2,500/-. Funeral expenses of Rs. 2,000/- can also be awarded. Towards the loss of estate, Rs. 2,500/- is awarded. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by modifying the award at Rs. 1,31,800/- with usual interest as provided by the Tribunal in the impugned award. The learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that a sum of Rs. 1,01,000/- has been deposited. Let the differential amount be deposited within a period of two months from today. Final Result : Allowed