A.K. Goswami, J;- Heard Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned counsel for the appellant, Insurance Co. Ltd., Dimapur, and Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Sr. counsel ap­pearing for Respondents/Claimants Nos. 1 to 9. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Dimapur, against the Judgment and Award dated 9.4.2007, passed by the learned Member, Motor Acci­dent Claims Tribunal-II, Dimapur, in MAC Case No. 75/05, whereby the claimants were awarded an amount of Rs. 3, 60,000/- and 9% interest over the awarded amount in de­fault of payment of the balance amount of Rs. 3,10,000/- within 30 days from 9.4.2007. 3. The claimants had filed the petition U/S 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs. 5,68,000/- for death of Ms. Ethel Patton, aged 18 years, who died in a motor vehicle accident involv­ing a Taxi Tata Sumo, bearing Registration No. NL-07/T- 0034, on 1.6.2004, at about 12.05 P.M. while the vehicle was coming from Wokhato Dimapur, with fare paying passen­gers. The learned Member, MACT-II, Dimapur, on consideration of the materials on record, came to a finding that it was fair and justified to consider Rs. 2,500/- as monthly income of the deceased. On the basis of the birth certificate of the deceased, the learned Trial Court also recorded a finding that the deceased was 21 years old at the time of ac­cident. The amount of compensation was ac­cordingly, worked out, taking 17 as multiplier. Rs. 10,000/- each was also granted on ac­count of funeral expenses and loss of estate, thereby arriving at a figure of Rs. 3,60,000/-as the just and fair compensation. The learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had also earlier awarded Rs. 50,000/- as an interim award. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award dated 09.04.2007, the present appeal has been preferred. 4. Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned counsel for the appellant, had submitted that there is no evi­dence on record to show that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negli­gent driving. The aforesaid submission of Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned counsel for the appellant, has been refuted by Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Sr. Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 9, that due to the vehicular accident in question, 4 cases including the present MAC No. 757 05 was registered, the other cases being MAC No. 95/04, MAC No. 96704 and MAC No. 106/04. The learned Sr. T.B. Jamir, learned counsel for the appellant, has been refuted by Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Sr. Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 9, that due to the vehicular accident in question, 4 cases including the present MAC No. 757 05 was registered, the other cases being MAC No. 95/04, MAC No. 96704 and MAC No. 106/04. The learned Sr. Counsel had also submitted that the Insurance Com­pany had challenged the award dated 30.1.2007, passed in MAC No. 95/04 and MAC No. 96/04 in MAC Appeal No. 33 (K) 07 before this Court, and the appeal of the Insurance Company was disposed of with certain directions and observations, record­ing a finding that the assessment made by the Tribunal was just and appropriate, and that Insurance Company was to satisfy the award at the first instance with liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. The aforesaid Judgment in MAC No. 33 (K) 07 was rendered on 22.11.2010. Mr. C.T. Jamir, in view of the aforesaid Judgment of this Court, submits that Insurance Company can­not raise the plea that the accident had not occurred due to rash and negligent driving. 5. A copy of the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2010 having been perused by Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned counsel for the appellant, he submits that he was not aware of the aforesaid Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2010 rendered in MAC No. 33 (K) 2007 as also the filing of three other cases, and having regard to the aforesaid, he sub­mits that he is not urging the point that the accident had not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. 6. With regard to the income of the de­ceased, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal was also wrong in concluding that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,500/- per month and that there is no evidence on record to sustain such find­ing. It is also his submission that the learned Tribunal committed manifest illegality in adopt­ing 17 as a multiplier in the facts and circum­stances of the case. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the fa­ther of the deceased being 57 years old and the mother being about 50 years old at the time of accident, adoption of 17 as multiplier cannot be justified under any circumstances. 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the fa­ther of the deceased being 57 years old and the mother being about 50 years old at the time of accident, adoption of 17 as multiplier cannot be justified under any circumstances. 7. Placing reliance of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Supe Dei (Smti) Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2009) 4SCC 513, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that 2nd schedule Un­der Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, can be taken as a guideline while de­termining the compensation Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and, therefore, 11 would be the appropriate mul­tiplier to be applied in the facts and circum­stances of the case. 8. Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Sr. counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 9, on the other hand, submits that the Judgment of the Tribu­nal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, does not warrant any interference. He sub­mits that though the claimants had pleaded in the petition that the deceased was earning Rs. 3, 500/- per month, in the evidence, it was deposed by PW-1 that the deceased was earning around Rs. 4, 000/- to Rs. 5, 000/-per month. However, the learned Tribunal determined, on the basis of the materials on record, that it would be just and fair to con­sider Rs. 2,500/- to be the monthly income of the deceased. The learned Sr. counsel also submits that as the interest rate is gradually declining, the choice of the multiplier as 17 cannot be faulted. 9. I have heard and considered the sub­mission of the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the materials including evidence on record. 10. There is no direct evidence with re­gard to the income earned by the deceased in the evidence adduced by PW-1. The evi­dence on record disclosed that the deceased used to bring cosmetic items and other sec­ond hand garment from Dimapur, and used to sell such items in Wokhatown and nearby villages. It is also in the evidence on record that on the fateful day, the deceased was com­ing to Dimapur from Wokha in connection with her business. The learned counsel for the par­ties are in agreement that Wokha would be at a distance of 150 Kms from Dimapur town. It is also in the evidence on record that on the fateful day, the deceased was com­ing to Dimapur from Wokha in connection with her business. The learned counsel for the par­ties are in agreement that Wokha would be at a distance of 150 Kms from Dimapur town. It is also in the evidence on record, brought out by the cross examination of the Insurance Company, that the deceased was earning from the age of 16 years and her other siblings were studying. 11. In view of the aforesaid materials, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal was not in error in concluding that it was fair and justified to take Rs. 2,500/- as monthly income of the deceased. 12. With regard to the choice of the multi­plier, on the face of it, it appears to be excessive. The highest multiplier has to be in the age group of 21 to 25 years when an ordi­nary Indian citizen normally starts earning and, the lowest would be in respect of a person in the age group of 60 to 70 years, which is the accepted normal retirement age. Given the age of the parents of the deceased, the father and mother being 57 years and 50 years, respec­tively, choice of multiplier of 17 by the learned Tribunal cannot be approved. 13. No doubt it is true, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, that it is well settled that 2nd schedule Under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which gives the amount of compensation to be determined for the purpose of claim under the section can be taken as a guideline while determining the compensation U/S 166 of the Act, it is equally true as noted by the Apex Court, in U.P. State Road Transport Cor­poration Vs. Krishna Bala & Ors., reported in (2006) 6 SCC 249 that the 2nd schedule Under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, also suffers from many defects. Though the same may serve as a guide, it can­not be said that the schedule can be consid­ered to be an invariable ready reckoner. Con­sidering all aspects of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the appropriate choice of multiplier would be 12. 14. Though the same may serve as a guide, it can­not be said that the schedule can be consid­ered to be an invariable ready reckoner. Con­sidering all aspects of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the appropriate choice of multiplier would be 12. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the award of the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that while determining the award of compensation, 12 shall be adopted as the multiplier. Accordingly, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/-. From the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,60,000/-, one third amount in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining herself would have to be reduced and, accordingly, Rs. 1,20,000/- has to be deducted from the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,60,000/-. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- with the addition of Rs. 10,000/- for funeral ex­penses as well as Rs. 10,000/- for loss of estate. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs, 2,60,000/-. 15. It is submitted by Mr. T.B. Jamir that Rs. 50,000/- had already been paid by way of satisfaction of the interim award. It is fur­ther submitted by him that there was no in­terim suspension of the award by this Court when the appeal was admitted for final hear­ing. Accordingly, the rate of interest at the rate of 9% per annum would be calculated as per the direction of the Tribunal, subject to the modification that the aforesaid interest would be a sum of Rs. 2, 10,000/- instead of the amount of Rs. 3,10,000/-, as ordered by the learned Tribunal. 16. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the appeal stands disposed of. 17. Lower Court Records be transmitted forthwith.