S.C. Chaurasia, J.;- None appears on behalf of the respondent no. 1. 2. Heard Sri Mohd. Ali, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Surendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and perused the record. 3. The present First Appeal From Order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the impugned award dated 29.05.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Lucknow in M.A.C.P. No. 520 of 2003, Radhika Devi and others Versus Sanjay Kumar and another. 4. In brief, the facts of the case, are that on 19th September, 2003 at about 01.15 P.M., adjacent to Deep Hotel, Police-Station-Hussainganj, District-Lucknow, a truck bearing no. U.P.-32 Z/3652 hit the deceased, Ram Deo, who was on his bicycle. In consequence thereof, he suffered grievous injuries, which resulted into his death. Admittedly, the deceased, Ram Deo, was an employee of U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and his monthly salary was Rs. 5601/- 5. The claimants filed the Claim Petition Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for claiming compensation before the Tribunal. During the course of trial, the Tribunal framed four Issues. On behalf of the appellants, P.W.-1, Smt. Radhika Devi (wife of deceased Ram Deo) and P.W.-2, Sri Ghanshyam appeared before the Tribunal as witnesses and on behalf of defendants, D.W.-1, Ashutosh, appeared as witness. The claimants also filed the copy of the chargesheet, post-mortem report, salary receipt, birth certificate of the deceased, site-plan and other related documents, whereas on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company, the report of the Investigator was filed. 6. Issue No. 1 relates to the accident which occurred on 19th September, 2002. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, have established the factum of accident through their oral statements as well as documentary evidence. 7. Issue No. 2 relates to insurance cover of the truck which was insured with the respondent-Insurance Company. While deciding the Issue Nos. 1 & 2, the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal recorded the finding as under :- @ Hindi @ 8. Thus, at the face of record, the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, had not discussed any evidence led by the parties. No finding has been recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of evidence led by the parties. 9. Similar is the position with regard to Issue No. 3 which relates to quantum of compensation. Thus, at the face of record, the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, had not discussed any evidence led by the parties. No finding has been recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of evidence led by the parties. 9. Similar is the position with regard to Issue No. 3 which relates to quantum of compensation. The Claim Petition was filed for claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,50,000/-. The Tribunal has recorded a finding over Issue No. 3 as under :- @ Hindi @ 10. Issue No. 3 has also been decided mechanically without discussing evidence led by the parties and also the documents available on record which includes the salary receipt of the deceased, where a finding has been recorded against the claimants. Thus, there appears to be no material on record as to how the Tribunal had awarded compensation to the appellants-claimants. Instead of deciding Issue No. 3, the Tribunal has decided Issue No. 4 which is a general Issue. As to whether the claimants are entitled for compensation or not, the Tribunal noted that after deduction, the deceased, Ram Deo, was getting Rs. 2010/- P.M. only and his annual income was Rs. 24,120/- and thereafter, deducted 1/3rd, towards personal expenses, holding the income of the deceased as Rs. 16,080/- per year. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 11 and recorded a finding that the claimants shall be entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,76,880/- In addition to that, Rs. 2000/- has been awarded for funeral expenses, Rs. 5000/-as loss of consortium and Rs. 2,500/- as loss to the Estate. 11. From the perusal of statements recorded by the Tribunal, it appears that the witnesses have proved the factum of accident beyond doubt. They have proved that the accident occurred by Truck No. U.P.-32/Z-3652. The Insurance policy also establishes that the truck in question was insured with the respondent-Insurance Company. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a case reported in (2009) 13 Supreme Court Cases 498, Rani Gupta and Others Versus United India Insurance Company Limited and Others, where their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that while calculating compensation, nature of job, average gross future monthly income should be taken into account by adding the actual gross income at the time of death of the deceased. Relevant portion from the case of Rani Gupta(Supra) is reproduced as under:- "9.Determination of the amount of compensation arising out of loss of life of a person, who was the earning member of the family, would depend upon a large number of factors; one of them being the nature of job or business he was doing. For the said purpose, an average gross future monthly income must be arrived at by adding the actual gross income at the time of his death to the maximum which he might have got, had he not met a premature death." 13. For the purpose of uniformity throughout the country, the multiplier should be used as provided under Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. Para Nos. 20 & 21 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rani Gupta(Supra) are reproduced as under :- "20.In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Patricia Jean Mahajan, however, this court following the earlier decisions in Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas as also Trilok Chandra held: (Patricia Jean Case, SCC pp.292-93, para 16) "16. What thus emerges from the above decisions is that the court must adhere to the system of multiplier in arriving at the proper amount of compensation, and also with a view to maintain uniformity and certainty. Use of higher multiplier has been deprecated and it is emphasised that it cannot exceed 18. The multiplier, as would be evident from the observations quoted earlier, may differ in the peculiar facts and circumstances of a particular case, as according to the example cited, where a bachelor dies at the age of 45, the age of his dependent parents may be relevant for selecting a proper multiplier. Meaning thereby that a multiplier less than what is provided in the Schedule could be applied in the special facts and circumstances of a case. In the later cases also this court has taken the same view that multiplier system is a more appropriate and proper method for calculating the amount of compensation. Lata Wadhwa V. State of Bihar may be referred to. Decision in Susamma Thomas and other English decisions considered in the judgments referred earlier, namely, Davies v. Taylor, Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd. and Mallett v. McMonagle have been referred to. 21. Lata Wadhwa V. State of Bihar may be referred to. Decision in Susamma Thomas and other English decisions considered in the judgments referred earlier, namely, Davies v. Taylor, Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd. and Mallett v. McMonagle have been referred to. 21. By and large, therefore, the Court had proceeded on the basis that the multiplier mentioned in the Second Schedule should be taken to be the guide, but it may not be. The multiplier specified in the Second Schedule may not be decisive for calculating compensation in cases of death. In fact, the word multiplier has been used only for the purpose of calculating damages in the case of permanent disability and not in the case of death as would appear from Notes 5 and 6 appended thereto". 14. In view of above, the Tribunal should have used the multiplier of 11 keeping in view the total income of the deceased as Rs. 5601/- P.M. Keeping in view the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 5601/-the annual income comes to Rs. 67,212/-(Rs. 5601 x 12). Out of which 1/3rd is deducted in view of personal expenses, the total annual contribution to the family comes to Rs. 44,808/- (Rs. 67,212- Rs. 22,404) and if the multiplier of 11 is applied to the income, the total compensation comes to Rs. 4,92,888/- In addition to that, Rs. 2000/- is also added in lieu of funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- as loss of consortium and Rs. 2500/- as loss of the Estate. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 5,02,388/- Accordingly, we hold that the appellants shall be entitled for compensation to Rs. 5,02,388/- The aforesaid amount shall be apportioned in the following ratio alongwith interest @ 8%. 15. Out of the aforesaid amount, Appellant No. 1, Smt. Radhika Devi, shall be given Rs. 1,50,000/- alongwith interest. An amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be given to the appellant No. 2, Ghan Shyam, and the rest of the amount shall be divided into four parts and shall be paid to appellants no. 3 to 6, Sarita, Geetanjali, Kalpana and Amit. The amount payable to the appellants nos. 3 to 6, shall be kept in an interest bearing account of a nationalised bank situated near to their residence, for the period of one year. 16. Subject to aforesaid direction, the impugned award dated 29-05-2006 stands modified. 3 to 6, Sarita, Geetanjali, Kalpana and Amit. The amount payable to the appellants nos. 3 to 6, shall be kept in an interest bearing account of a nationalised bank situated near to their residence, for the period of one year. 16. Subject to aforesaid direction, the impugned award dated 29-05-2006 stands modified. While parting with the case, we would like to observe that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, Sri Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, Additional District Judge, Court No.8/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lucknow, has dealt with the matter casually and delivered the impugned award by a cryptic order without discussing the evidence available on record. Learned Presiding Officer should have discussed the evidence available on record and should have assigned reasons on each and every Issue. It appears that learned Presiding Officer lacks legal acquaintance and requires improvement to reach upto-the-mark which is expected from a judicial officer, holding the post of Additional District & Sessions Jude. 17. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Registrar General of this court, who shall communicate the same to the Presiding Officer, who has delivered the impugned award dated 29-05-2006 and copy shall also be kept in service record.. 18. The First Appeal from Order is allowed accordingly.