Judgment Sanjay Yadav, J. ( 1. ) Present appeal is against the award dated 23.4.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Balaghat in Claim Case No. 25/2006, whereby Claims Tribunal allowed the Claim Petition by the appellants and awarded the sum of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of death of Naresh,aged 16 years, who died in an accident on 20.4.2005 when the tractor bearing registration No. MP 05-M-0189 in which he was traveling turned turtle. The tractor was allegedly driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 2. The Claims Tribunal holding that the deceased was not an earning member did not apply the multiplier and awarded the minimum compensation of Rs.50,000/-. ( 2. ) In the present appeal only quantum of compensation is being questioned, therefore, the factum of accident, the age of deceased and the fact that he died due to accident which took place on 20.4.2005 are taken to be admitted. 3.The appellants claimants question the quantum of compensation on the ground that the Claims Tribunal committed an error by not properly assessing the income of the deceased and by applying wrong multiplier. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by UP. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Trilok Chandra and Ors.[ (1996) 4 SCC 362 ] and Manju Devi and another Vs. Musafir Paswan and another, (2005 ACJ: 99) to bring home the submission that, maximum multiplier ought to have been adopted by taking the notional income into consideration. 4. In Trilok Chand(supra) the deceased Premchand aged about 26 years met with a fatal accident on 1.8.1977. In a Claim for compensation, the Claims Tribunal taking his earning capacity at Rs.300/- per month, estimated that he spent Rs200/- per month on his family members and fixing life expectancy at 60 years, the Tribunal deducted 36 years and held that family was deprived of his earning for 24 years. The compensation was worked out at Rs.57,600/- (200 x 12x 24). The amount was thereafter raised to 81,600/-, by applying multiplier of 24 years purchase factor. In the background of this fact their Lordships were pleased to observe. 5. In Manju Devi and another Vs. Musafir Paswan and another (supra) their lordships were pleased to observe: "2. In the case of U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. The amount was thereafter raised to 81,600/-, by applying multiplier of 24 years purchase factor. In the background of this fact their Lordships were pleased to observe. 5. In Manju Devi and another Vs. Musafir Paswan and another (supra) their lordships were pleased to observe: "2. In the case of U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. V. Trilok Chandra,1996 ACJ 831 (SC), it has been held by this Court that there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that payment being made is just compensation. It has been held that the multiplier method must be accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation as it is the method which brings uniformity and certainty to awards made all over the country. In view of this authority, it will have to be held that the awardof compensation had to be made by the multiplier method. ( 3. ) As set out in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,for a boy of 13 years of age, a multiplier of 15 would have to be applied. As per the Second Schedule, he being a non-earning person, a sum of Rs.15,000/- must be taken as the income. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs.2,25,000/-. ( 4. ) We accordingly modify the award to be in a sum of Rs.2,25,000 with interest as awarded. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs." Recently,in Sarla Verma (Smt.)and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121, it has been observed by their Lordships: "19 To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well- settled steps: Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependant family, constitutes the multiplicand. Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and the period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependant family, constitutes the multiplicand. Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and the period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers, with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased. Step 3 (Actual calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the "loss of dependency" to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs.5000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5000 to 10,000 should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased. The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) should also be added. Furthermore in respect of question regarding deduction for personal and living expenses their Lordships were pleased to observe ( 5. ) "Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent (s)and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father." Regarding multiplier it has been held "41. Tribunals/courts adopt and apply different operative multipliers. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father." Regarding multiplier it has been held "41. Tribunals/courts adopt and apply different operative multipliers. Some follow the multiplier with reference to Susamma Thomas set out in Column (2) of the table above; some follow the multiplier with reference to Trilok Chandra set out in Column (3) of the table above; some follow the multiplier with reference to Charlie set out in Column (4) of the table above; many follow the multiplier given in the second column of the table in the Second Schedule of the MV Act (extracted in Column (5) of the table above; and some follow the multiplier actually adopted in the Second Schedule while calculating the quantum of compensation set out in Column (6) of the table above. For example if the deceased is aged 38 years, the multiplier would be 12 as per Susamma Thomas,14 as per Trilok Chandra,15 as per Charlie, or 16 as per the multiplier given in Column (2) of the Second Schedule to the MV Act or 15 as per the multiplier actually adopted in the Second Schedule to the MV Act. Some tribunals, as in this case, apply the multiplier of 22 by taking the balance years of service with reference to the retiring age. It is necessary to avoid this kind of inconsistency. We are concerned with cases falling under Section 166 and not under Section 163-A of the MV Act. In cases falling under Section 166 of the MV Act,Davies method is applicable. ( 6. It is necessary to avoid this kind of inconsistency. We are concerned with cases falling under Section 166 and not under Section 163-A of the MV Act. In cases falling under Section 166 of the MV Act,Davies method is applicable. ( 6. ) We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas,Trilok Chandra and Charlie, which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is,M-ll for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years." Thus, keeping in view the law above and the facts of present case, the deceased being 16 years of age and unmarried, therefore, by taking into consideration 50% of the notional income to be the loss of annual dependency and by applying multiplier of 18, the loss of total dependency comes to Rs.7500 X 18 = Rs,l,35,000/- and by adding Rs.10,000/- towards conventional head, the total compensation comes to Rs.1,35,000 + Rs.10,000/- = Rs.1,45,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- and after deducting the same, the amount which appellant will now be entitled for would be Rs.95,000/-. The appellant would be entitled for interest @ 6 % on the enhanced amount from the date of appeal. The entire enhanced amount and interest accruing thereon should be deposited in a fixed deposit for a term of Rs.7 years with Nationalized Bank. ( 7. ) Furthermore, Tribunal on finding that the Tractor was used for carrying matrimonial goods, other than the purpose for which it was insured, i.e., agriculture purpose, exonerated the Insurance Co. from the liability to pay. Against this finding cross-objection is filed by the owner. It is contended that Claims Tribunal grossly erred in holding that the Insurance Policy was an agriculture package policy. from the liability to pay. Against this finding cross-objection is filed by the owner. It is contended that Claims Tribunal grossly erred in holding that the Insurance Policy was an agriculture package policy. It is urged that the policy was a general policy and covered third party risk and since the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, his death ought to have been indemnified by the Insurance Co. ( 8. ) The facts on record, however, do not support the objections. The Insurance Co. examined its Branch Manager, D.W-2, who verified the insurance policy (Ex. D-l)stating therein that the policy was an agriculture package policy. Furthermore, it has come on record that the tractor in question was in use for other than agriculture purpose. The owner/objector did not lead evidence to contradict the above facts; therefore, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal on the basis of evidence on record that the tractor in question was used for other than agriculture purpose in breach of policy needs no interference. The cross-objection being sans merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. In the result the appeal by the claimant is allowed to the extent above and the cross-objection by the owner is dismissed; however, no costs. Appeal allowed.