Devi Prasad Singh and S.C. Chaurasia, J.;- 1. Heard Shri J.B.Singh learned counsel for the appellant and Shri R.P.Singh learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records. 2. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehilce Act, 1988 against the impugned award dated 23.11.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge IV, Faizabad. 3. In brief, on 30.10.1990, the deceased Om Prakash Yadav, Member of CISF while posted at the Ayodhaya Marg Faizabad as a measure of security was hit by Roadways Bus No.UAA 9316 and succumbed to injuries. The bus was driven rashly and negligently and also broken the barrier where the deceased was posted. The claimants approached the tribunal for payment of compensation. The tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,47,000/-. The Tribunal had applied the multiplier of 16 on the basis of notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum. 4. Solitary argument advanced by the appellant's counsel is that 1/3rd amount has not been deducted with regard to personal expanses by the Tribunal. However, a perusal of the award reveals that Tribunal had rightly applied the multiplier of 16 but has not deducted the 1/3rd amount in lieu of personal expanses. In response to argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant it has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that even if 1/3rd amount has not been deducted it call for no interference since the tribunal had awarded just and fair compensation keeping in view the young age of the person working in CISF. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the Tribunal has got right to award compensation more than what has been provided in the second schedule. However, in case multiplier is used in terms of second schedule then it is not open for Tribunal to use multiplier in piecemeal. Since, multiplier includes deduction of 1/3rd amount, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to deduct the amount to the extent of Rs. 5000/-(1/3rd) to that extent order passed by the Tribunal calls for modification. 6. In view of above, while applying the multiplier of 16 in lieu of notional income, we deduct 1/3rd amount in terms of second schedule of Motor Vehicle Act. While deducting the amount in lieu of personal expanses the total amount comes to Rs. 10,000/-. 5000/-(1/3rd) to that extent order passed by the Tribunal calls for modification. 6. In view of above, while applying the multiplier of 16 in lieu of notional income, we deduct 1/3rd amount in terms of second schedule of Motor Vehicle Act. While deducting the amount in lieu of personal expanses the total amount comes to Rs. 10,000/-. On applying the multiplier of 16, it comes to Rs. 1,60,000/-. Rs. 7,000/- in lieu of funeral expenses and loss of consortium. Accordingly, we assess total compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,67,000/-. The Tribunal had not awarded compensation with regard to loss of estate as provided under Schedule 2 which comes to Rs. 2,500/-. After adding Rs. 2,500/- for loss of estate, the total compensation comes to Rs. 1,69,500/-. 7. In view of above, claimant-respondents are entitled for compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,69,500/-. Accordingly, we allow the appeal in part and modify the Tribunal's order holding that the claimant-respondents shall be entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,69,500/-. The impugned award stand modified accordingly. Let entire compensation be paid to the claimant-respondents within a period of two months by the Tribunal in terms of award. Amount deposited in this court shall be remitted to the Tribunal forthwith by the registry.