P.K. Musahary,J.:- The present Cross Objectors/appellants are the claimants in the case No. T.S. (MAC) 253/2009 filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Agartala, West Tripura (here­inafter referred to as Tribunal only). 2. The claim petition was filed under Sec­tion 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (M. V. Act in short) for granting compensa­tion of Rs. 26,97,000/- only in total with in­terest @ 12% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition till the date of payment of the awarded amount. The claimants say that they are the wife, son and mother of the deceased. They further say that on 14.02.2009 the deceased Budhi Debbarma alongwith 4/5 relatives went to the house of one Shri Hemanta Jamatia at Takchapara form Goliraibari to attend the marriage cer­emony of daughter of Hemanta Jamatia by vehicle No. TR-01K-0201(Maruti Van) owned by maternal uncle-in-law of the de­ceased. It was a family pleasure trip with the relatives of the deceased. After attending the marriage ceremony, on the same day he along with others were returning to his house at Puskar Ban at Bishramganj the said vehicle. It was about 8-30 p.m. when the vehicle reached at Bagmara Chowmohani on Takchapara- Bishramganj road, the driver of the vehicle lost control and as a result the ve­hicle met with an accident and fell down by the side of the road in a ditch and also dashed with a rubber tree, due to which Budhi Debbarma sustained injury on his person. Local people shifted him to Bishramganj PHC where he was declared dead. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of vehicle bearing No. TR01K-0201 (Maruti Van). The deceased was aged about 28 years at the time of accident. He was working in the Department of Home, Government of Tripura as a regular employee. 3. I have heard Mr. B. Debnath, learned counsel for the Cross Objectors/appellants. Also heard Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. A.G. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 4. The opposite party No. 1, owner of the accident vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01K-0201 contested the suit by filing written statement admitting the accident and ownership of the vehicle but denying the alle­gation of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle. It was stated that the vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Co. 4. The opposite party No. 1, owner of the accident vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01K-0201 contested the suit by filing written statement admitting the accident and ownership of the vehicle but denying the alle­gation of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle. It was stated that the vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. covering the date of acci­dent. The opposite party No. 2, New India Assurance Co. Ltd, insurer of the said vehi­cle also contested the suit by filing written statement on some technical grounds. It is contended that the claim of the petitioners is exhorbitant which the claimants are not enti­tled to get. 5. Smti. Bhanu Rani Debarma, wife of the deceased, as petitioner No. 1 examined her­self as PW 1. She produced the documents relating to the police case (Ext. 1 series), postmortem report, salary certificate and Admit Card of the deceased ( Ext. 2 series). To establish her claim, she also examined one Shri Jugal Debbarma as PW 2. The opposite party No. 1, owner of the vehicle submitted copy of Insurance policy, tax token, driving licence of Baj an Debbarma and Certificate of regis­tration of the vehicle (Ext. A series). 6. On consideration of documents and evidence on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition on contest awarding Rs. 18,27,208/- only alongwith in­terest @ 6% per annum in equal share from the date of filing of the petition i.e. on 8.6.2009 till the date of payment and directing the op­posite party, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. to pay the said amount of compensation together with interest within a period of thirty days form the date of judgment. 7. The opposite party No. 2, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., being the insurer of the said vehicle preferred an appeal against the judgment and award dated 22.01.2011 passed by the learned Tribunal in the afore­said Title Suit before this Court. The said ap­peal was registered as MAC Appeal No. 43/2011. 8. The claimants, being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award dated 22.01.2011 have filed the present C.O.(FA) 02/2011 on the ground that the learned Tribunal has applied wrong multi­plier for calculating the compensation result­ing into awarding of less compensation. 9. The said ap­peal was registered as MAC Appeal No. 43/2011. 8. The claimants, being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award dated 22.01.2011 have filed the present C.O.(FA) 02/2011 on the ground that the learned Tribunal has applied wrong multi­plier for calculating the compensation result­ing into awarding of less compensation. 9. It may be pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid MAC Appeal filed by the in­surer was dismissed by this Court at the ad­mission stage vide order dated 20.07.2011. 10. The only point urged upon for consid­eration and decision in this case is whether on the admitted facts and circumstances the multiplier 16 as applied to by the learned Tribunal in awarding the compensation vide the impugned judgment or the multiplier 17 as demanded by the Cross Objectors/appellants in the present appeal should be applied for awarding the compensation. 11. There is no dispute that the deceased at the time of death was 30 years, 1 month and 14 days. His date of birth was 01.01.1979 and there was no dispute on it. At the time of his death the deceased was serving in the State Police Department and drawing salary of Rs. 8,851/- per month. 12. The learned counsel for the Cross Objectors/appellants submits that the multi­plier 17 should be chosen and applied for the age group of 26 to 30 years inasmuch as the deceased was yet to complete the age of 31 years at the time of his death in the vehicular accident. The learned Tribunal, according to Mr. B. Debnath, learned counsel for the appellants, committed grave error in law in ap­plying multiplier 16 which is meant for the age group of 31 to 35 years. He also submits that the learned Tribunal is bound to apply multi­plier 17 as per Schedule II to the M. V. Act. The learned Tribunal, according to Mr. B. Debnath, learned counsel for the appellants, committed grave error in law in ap­plying multiplier 16 which is meant for the age group of 31 to 35 years. He also submits that the learned Tribunal is bound to apply multi­plier 17 as per Schedule II to the M. V. Act. It has been persuaded by the learned counsel for the appellants that the M. V. Act and the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (pre­viously Workmen's Compensation Act) be­ing beneficial piece of legislation and Section 143 of the M.V. Act has been made applica­ble to certain claims under Act 8 of 1923 (Workmen's Compensation Act) and there are catena of Apex Court's decisions reiterating that every provision of both the Act should be read down and construed in such a man­ner so that the benefit can be extended to the victim of accident or their legal representa­tives. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants submits if the multiplier 17 is applied to the present case the total claim of would be as follows :- "Monthly salary drawn by the deceased was Rs. 8,851/- less professional tax Rs. 100/- which comes to Rs. 8,751/-, 50% of Rs. 8,751/- i.e. Rs. 4,375.5 is to be added as future prospects in service life of the deceased with his monthly salary of Rs. 8,751/-, which comes to Rs. 13,126.50. Thus annual income of the deceased BudhiDebbarmawasRs. 13,126.50 X 13= Rs. 1,70,644.50. The deceased was a non-gazetted employee of the Department of Home, Govt. of Tripura, so as per Govt. norms and rules he used to draw 1 month salary a special compensatory allowance in a year and so he used to draw 13 months salary in a year of 12 months. Thus monthly income of the deceased has been multilled by 13. This has also been considered by the Tribunal below, (please see page 37 of the paper book, para 8 of the impugned judg­ment). The annual income of the deceased was 1,70,644.50, wherefrom 1/3rd is to be deducted for personal expenses considering 3 nos. of dependent family members, which comes to Rs. 1,13,763/- (Rs. 1,70,644.50 less 1/3rd of Rs. 1,70,644.50 i.e. Rs. 56,881.50). This annual loss of Rs. 1,13,763/- is to be multiplied by the ap­propriate multiplier 17 which comes to Rs. 19,3 3,971/-, added to this the appellants are also entitled to Rs. of dependent family members, which comes to Rs. 1,13,763/- (Rs. 1,70,644.50 less 1/3rd of Rs. 1,70,644.50 i.e. Rs. 56,881.50). This annual loss of Rs. 1,13,763/- is to be multiplied by the ap­propriate multiplier 17 which comes to Rs. 19,3 3,971/-, added to this the appellants are also entitled to Rs. 10,000/- as loss of estate, Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 5,000/-for funeral expenses, which would accumulate to a grand total of Rs. 19,58,971/- only as total claim of the appellants for 'loss of income' of the deceased Budhi Debbarma. The appellants claim interest @ 12% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of filing the claim petition, i.e. on 08.06.2009 till the date of payment." 14. I have given my serious and anxious consideration to submission made by the learned counsel for the Cross Objectors/appellants in the light of decision rendered by the Apex Court in Smti. Sarla Verma & Ors., Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in 2009 AIR SCW4992, which has been relied upon for the claims mentioned above. The said judgment has decided the manner in which the multiplier should be applied to a given case. The law has been settled in the aforesaid case that Schedule II to the M.V. Act should invari­ably be applied to and implemented in the matter of awarding the compensation. But what is to be noted is that two sets of mul­tipliers have been prescribed as per the age of the victim and date of the accident. One set is to be adopted in regard to the acci­dent prior to 14.11.1994 and on or after 14.11.1994. 14.11.1994 is the date on which the Schedule II was introduced after inserting Section 163 A to the M.V. Act. The relevant provision is reproduced here-under- Multiplier to be adopted Age of the victim In regard to accident prior to 14.11. 1994 In regard to accident on or after 14. 11. 1994 18 to 22 years 16 18 23 to 27 years 15 17 28 to 32 years 14 16 33 to 37 years 13 15 38 to 42 years 12 14 43 to 47 years 11 13 48 to 52 years 10 12 53 to 57 years 09 11 58 to 62 years 08 10 63 to 67 years 07 09 68 to 72 years 06 08 73 to 77 years 05 07 15. The relevant age group in the present case is 28 to 32 years if the age of the victim is accepted as 30 years, 1 month and 14 days. In fact, as stated earlier, there is no dis­pute on the age of the deceased. The acci­dent, admittedly, took place after 14.11.1994. This is also not disputed. If it is so, the multi­plier 16 should be adopted. The multiplier 17 could be applied only in case where the age of the deceased is in the age group of 23 to 27 years. Because of the aforesaid factual and legal position, I am unable to persuade my­self that the multiplier 17 could be adopted for the present case. I am of the considered view, it is 16 and not any other multiplier that could be applied to the instant case. There is no infirmity and illegality in the im­pugned judgment passed by the learned Tri­bunal awarding the compensation by apply­ing the multiplier 16. The impugned judgment and award warrants no interference and the same stands upheld. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 16. The respondent insurance company is directed to comply with the judgment and directions given by the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award within a pe­riod of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 17. No costs. Return the LCR forthwith.