Judgment Heard. Taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties in view of two limited controversies, namely the dispute about apportionment of compensation to the appellants i.e. wife, child; and parents of the deceased and secondly, regarding the applicability of multiplier and the computation of dependency by the Tribunal. There is no point in keeping the appeal admitted since the controversy is limited as above. Hence, this Court took up the appeal for final disposal. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 22.10.2010, passed by the Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-2, Nagpur in Claim Petition No.105/2006 by which the Tribunal made an award in the sum of Rs.8,46,672/-plus interest. 3. In support of the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellants wife and child and learned Counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4 parents argued that the Tribunal committed an error in applying multiplier of 16 in place of 17 i.e. prescribed in Schedule II under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, when in fact it should have applied multiplier of 17. The learned Counsel for the appellants then argued that there was unchallenged evidence on record placed by the claimants before the Tribunal about receipt of commission of the deceased who was a medical representative and the average or mean of the three years commission would come to Rs.1,00,319.83. The Tribunal, however, brought it down to Rs.90,000/-for no reasons. According to him, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the amount of dependency should come to Rs.66,879.89. Looking to the fact that there are four dependents, the Tribunal should have awarded appropriate compensation rather than making deduction for no reasons. Both Counsel, thus, prayed for modifying the impugned award. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent Insurance Company vehemently opposed the appeal and argued in support of the impugned judgment and award that the Tribunal has made exercise in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court and there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. According to him, Schedule II does not have strictly any application as Schedule -II cannot be said to be binding on the Tribunal in the proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award. According to him, Schedule II does not have strictly any application as Schedule -II cannot be said to be binding on the Tribunal in the proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award. I have heard learned Counsel for the rival parties. Following points arise for my determination in this appeal. (1) Whether the Tribunal committed an error in not arriving at the dependency at Rs.66,879.89 ? ...Yes. (2) Whether the Tribunal committed an error in not adopting the multiplier of 17 in place of 16 ? ...Yes. (3) What order ? ...Appeal is partly allowed. 6. Having referred to the evidence of P.W. 2 Arvind Jathar which has almost gone unchallenged and as discussed by the Tribunal in paragraph no.10 of its judgment, I would like to draw the conclusion that the total income of the deceased prior to his death for last three years comes to Rs.3,00,959.50 after deduction of profession tax and therefore, I hold that the Tribunal ought to have calculated total income per year at Rs.1,00,319.83 in place of Rs.90,000/-. The Tribunal has given no reason as to why it reduced income to Rs.90,000/-per annum. That apart, the Tribunal further committed an error in making deduction towards income tax, clearly ignoring the provisions of the Income Tax Act at the relevant time, when the deceased could not be assessed under the Income Tax Act his income being below Rs.1,20,000/-per annum. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in deducting the income tax @ Rs.10,000/-per year. However, the Tribunal was right in deducting the amount of Rs. 2,500/-per year towards profession tax. The amount towards profession tax for three years thus comes to Rs.7,500/-. After deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the deceased the final amount of dependency comes to Rs.66,879,89. Finally, I come to conclusion that the dependency ought to have been calculated at Rs.66,879,89. Hence, I answer point no.1 in the affirmative. 7. As to point no.2 : -Perusal of Schedule II under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act shows that looking to the age of deceased between 32 to 35, multiplier of 17 is required to be adopted. Hence, I answer point no.1 in the affirmative. 7. As to point no.2 : -Perusal of Schedule II under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act shows that looking to the age of deceased between 32 to 35, multiplier of 17 is required to be adopted. There is no dispute that the proceedings in question are under Section 166 and Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, strictly speaking, multiplier provided by Schedule II would not bind the Tribunal or this Court nor the same could be adopted like a straight jacket formula to find out the correct multiplier. Still I find that the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the multiplier of 17 rather than 16, for which I assign the following reasons: (a) Deceased was aged about 32 years. (b) Deceased was working as a medical representative in M/s. Sandu Pharma Company, an established old reputed company. (c) Deceased was waiting for green signal abiding by law since the signal was red at the relevant time. (d) Deceased was relaxed and waiting for green signal when the offending truck suddenly came from behind and dashed him, as a result, the deceased stood lifted in the air and fell on the road, received head injury and died. (e) Deceased left behind four dependents wife, small child and old aged parents. (f) Deceased was absolutely at no fault when the accident had taken place in the violent manner indicated above. 8. In my opinion, these are the reasons which must be borne in the mind of the Court to tilt the balance for holding that the multiplier of 17 should be applied. This is all the more so because the respondents have not brought out any material on record to rebut the above factors as to why the multiplier of 17 should not be adopted. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to hold that the multiplier of 17 would have been the appropriate multiplier. Hence, I answer point no.2 in the affirmative. 9. The upshot of the above discussion is that the amount of dependency as calculated by me above will have to be multiplied by multiplier of 17, which comes to Rs.11,36,958.13. In so far as rest of the award is concerned, namely about interest and costs and other directions, the award deserves to be confirmed. 9. The upshot of the above discussion is that the amount of dependency as calculated by me above will have to be multiplied by multiplier of 17, which comes to Rs.11,36,958.13. In so far as rest of the award is concerned, namely about interest and costs and other directions, the award deserves to be confirmed. In the result, I make the following order. ORDER (i) First Appeal No.197/2011 is partly allowed with proportionate costs. (ii) Award of Rs.8,46,672/-shall be substituted by Rs.11,36,958.13 with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the realization of the entire amount. (iii) Amount of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lac Only) in place of Rs.3,00,000/-, directed by the Tribunal, be kept in F.D.R. in the name of appellant no.2 child in any Nationalized Bank for a period of five years with liberty to withdraw the interest accrued thereon periodically. (iv) Balance amount shall be disbursed in three equal shares to the wife and parents. (v) Rest of the award is confirmed. Award be drawn up accordingly.