JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is against the judgment and award dated 22nd September, 2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Third Court, Krishnagar, Nadia in a claim application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being MAC Case No.429 of 2008. 2. The judgment and award was rendered in connection with the death of one Sanjib Pal, son of the appellant claimants, in an accident involving a truck bearing the registration no.WB-51/3874, owned by one Shyam Sundar Pal, hereinafter referred to as “the respondent owner” and covered by a police of insurance taken out by Oriental Insurance Company Limited, hereinafter referred to as “the respondent insurer”. 3. By the judgment and award under appeal, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- to the appellant claimants along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the award till full payment. The compensation was computed by assuming the notional income of the victim to be Rs.15,000/-, and by adopting the multiplier ‘15’, having regard to the age of the appellant claimants, being the parents and after deducting 50% from the total income of the victim towards his personal expenses since the victim was a bachelor. 4. Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that the compensation amount was far too low. There was no justification at all in assuming that the victim had a notional income of Rs.15,000/- per year only, ignoring the evidence on record. Mr. Banejee further argued that multiplier should have been adopted as per the age of the deceased and not the age of the appellant claimants, since the second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act provides for computation of compensation on the basis of the age of the victim. Moreover, Mr. Banerjee argued that deduction towards personal expenses should be one-third of the income, as provided in the second Schedule and not 50%, as directed by the learned Tribunal. 5. Mr. Pahari, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent insurer, on the other hand, argued that the learned Tribunal rightly assumed the notional income of the victim to be Rs.15,000/- per annum, in view of Note VI to the Schedule, which provides for computation of notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum for non-earning persons in cases of fatal accidents and disability in non-fatal accidents. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. Pahari further submitted that in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Shanti Pathak and Ors., reported in 2007 SAR (Civil) 748 and Ramesh Singh and Anr. Vs. Satbir Singh and Anr., reported in 2008 ACJ 814 , the learned Tribunal rightly applied multiplier taking the age of the parents into account. 7. Mr. Pahari also submitted that the deceased being a bachelor, 50% of his income was liable to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. In support of his submission, Mr. Pahari cited a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Fatema Bibi and Anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., reported in 2013 (2) T.A.C 439 (Cal) and Chhaya Sarkar and Anr. Vs. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., reported in 2014 (1) T.A.C 837 (Cal.). 8. The judgment in Fatema Bibi and Anr. (supra) was rendered in the context of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles At and not Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is not very clear whether the judgment in Chhaya Sarkar (supra) arose in proceedings under Section 166 or in proceedings under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. In any case, in the facts and circumstances of the case before the Division Bench, the Division Bench did not deem it expedient to deviate from the ordinary practice of deduction of 50% in the case of bachelors as evolved by the Supreme Court in its judgments discussed hereinafter. 9. The issues in this appeal are the issues of (i) justification of fixing notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum where exact income cannot be proved by documentary evidence, (ii) whether the multiplier to be applied for the purpose of computation of compensation should be as per the age of the victim or the age of the claimants, in the event the claimants were older than the victim and (iii) whether it is essential in all cases to deduct 50% from the income towards personal expenses when the victim was a bachelor notwithstanding the mandate of the second Schedule to deduct only one-third of the expenses of the victim towards his personal expenses. 10. The first issue is whether the learned Tribunal was justified in determining the notional income of the victim at Rs.15,000/- per annum. 10. The first issue is whether the learned Tribunal was justified in determining the notional income of the victim at Rs.15,000/- per annum. The second Schedule provides for computation of compensation on the basis of notional income of Rs.15,000/- in case of persons with no income. It is nobody’s case that the victim did not have any income at all. Even the Tribunal did not arrive at the finding that the victim did not have any income. 11. The claimants have adduced oral evidence that the victim earned Rs.3,300/- per month, but have not been able to substantiate their claim to income with documentary evidence. Even if the claim to income could not be substantiated by cogent documentary evidence, which would, in any event, be difficult to produce having regard to the fact that the victim had a meagre income and was not taxable, the learned Tribunal necessarily had to estimate the income. It would be reasonable to assume that the victim could, by carrying on business of garments, earn Rs.100/- per day on an average or, in other words, Rs.3,000/- per month. 12. Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the said Act or in any other law for the time being in force, or instrument having the force of law, the owner of a motor vehicle or the authorized insurer would be liable to pay, in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the second Schedule, to the legal heirs of the victim or the victim, as the case might be. 13. In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1) of Section 163A, the claimant is not required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made, was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. Section 163A(3) empowers the Central Government, by Notification in the Official Gazette, to amend the second Schedule from time to time, keeping in view the cost of living. Section 163A(3) empowers the Central Government, by Notification in the Official Gazette, to amend the second Schedule from time to time, keeping in view the cost of living. Unfortunately, however, since incorporation of the second Schedule with effect from 14th November, 1994, there has not been any amendment in spite of staggering inflation and in spite of judgments of the Supreme Court pointing out obvious errors in the second Schedule. The second Schedule sets forth the multiplier applicable to different age groups and also classifies income by way of illustrative example. The classification of annual income in case of fatal accidents is Rs.3000/-, Rs.4200/-, Rs.5400/-, Rs.6600/-, Rs.7800/-, Rs.9000/-, Rs.10,200/-, Rs.11,400/-, Rs.12,000/-, Rs.18,000/-, Rs.24,000/-, Rs.36,000/- and Rs.40,000/- per annum. As per the second Schedule, the annual income is to be multiplied by the multiplier as applicable to the age group to which the victim belonged at the time of the accident. In case of fatal accidents, one-third of the aforesaid amount would have to be deducted in consideration of the personal expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself, had he been alive. In addition to the aforesaid amount, Rs.2000/- was to be paid towards funeral expenses, Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, if the beneficiary was the spouse. In addition to the aforesaid compensation, a claimant could claim reimbursement of actual medical expenses incurred before the death supported by bills and vouchers, but not exceeding Rs.15,000/-. There is also provision for general damages in case of injuries and disabilities. Over and above, the general damages mentioned above, general damages of Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering in case of grievous injuries, Rs.1,000/- in case of non-grievous injuries may be awarded. Compensation under Section 163A is payable irrespective of any fault or negligence, as observed above, and only in case of victims with an annual income not exceeding Rs.40,000/- per month. 14. It is true that Section 163A read with the Schedule does not anywhere specify an income limit of Rs.40,000/- per month for filing a claim application under the aforesaid section. The examples of annual income range from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. Even an unemployed person is entitled to compensation. In case of an unemployed/non-earning person, the annual income is to be assumed to be Rs.15,000/- per annum for computation of compensation. The examples of annual income range from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. Even an unemployed person is entitled to compensation. In case of an unemployed/non-earning person, the annual income is to be assumed to be Rs.15,000/- per annum for computation of compensation. If an unemployed is entitled to compensation assuming his/her income to be Rs.15,000/- per annum, we see no reason why compensation should not be payable to a person with an annual income of Rs.2,000/- or a person with an annual income of Rs.2,500/-. The second Schedule could very well be interpreted to mean that the income figures are only illustrative and there is no income cap as such. However, Section 163A has been judicially interpreted by the Supreme Court to provide for a limit of Rs.40,000/- to the annual income of the victim, in Deepal Girish Bhai Soni & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2004) 2 T.A.C. 289 (SC) : (2004) 2 WBLR (SC) 43. 15. In view of the judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court, it may be assumed that the section applies to victims with limited income not exceeding Rs.40,000/-, who have been classified into a group of victims, who would be entitled to compensation as per second Schedule irrespective of fault or negligence. In other cases, fault or negligence would have to be established. However, there are obvious errors in the second Schedule as noted by the Supreme Court in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. Vs. Trilok Chandra and Ors., reported in (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 362. The Supreme Court at paragraphs 17 and 18 observed as follows: “17. The situation has now undergone a change with the enactment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended by Amendment Act 54 of 1994. The most important change introduced by the amendment insofar as it relates to determination of compensation is the insertion of Sections 163-A and 163-B in Chapter XI entitled “Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third Party Risks”. Section 165-A begins with a non obstante clause and provides for payment of compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal representatives of the deceased or injured, as the case may be. Now if we turn to the Second Schedule, we find a table fixing the mode of calculation of compensation for third party accident injury claims arising out of fatal accidents. Now if we turn to the Second Schedule, we find a table fixing the mode of calculation of compensation for third party accident injury claims arising out of fatal accidents. The first column gives the age group of the victims of accident, the second column indicates the multiplier and the subsequent horizontal figures indicate the quantum of compensation in thousand payable to the heirs of the deceased victim. According to this table the multiplier varies from 5 to 18 depending on the age group to which the victim belonged. Thus, under this Schedule the maximum multiplier can be up to 18 and not 16 as was held in Susamma Thomas case. 18. We must at once point out that the calculation of compensation and the amount worked out in the Schedule suffer from several defects. For example, in item 1 for a victim aged 15 years, the multiplier is shown to be 15 years and the multiplicand is shown to be Rs.3000. The total should be 3000x15=45,000 but the same is worked out at Rs.60,000. Similarly, in the second item the multiplier is 16 and the annual income is Rs.9000; the total should have been Rs.1,44,000 but it shown to be Rs.1,71,000. To put it briefly, the table abounds in such mistakes. Neither the tribunals nor the courts can go by the ready reckoner. It can only be used as a guide. Besides, the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependant on the age of the deceased. For example, if the deceased, a bachelor, dies at the age of 45 and his dependants are his parents, age of the parents would also be relevant in the choice of the multiplier. But these mistakes are limited to actual calculations only and not in respect of other items. What we propose to emphasise is that the multiplier cannot exceed 18 years’ purchase factor. This is the improvement over the earlier position that ordinarily it should not exceed 16. We thought it necessary to state the correct legal position as courts and tribunals are using higher multiplier as in the present case where the Tribunal used the multiplier of 24 which the High Court raised to 34, thereby showing lack of awareness of the background of the multiplier system in Davies case. ” 16. We thought it necessary to state the correct legal position as courts and tribunals are using higher multiplier as in the present case where the Tribunal used the multiplier of 24 which the High Court raised to 34, thereby showing lack of awareness of the background of the multiplier system in Davies case. ” 16. In Trilok Chandra (supra), the Supreme Court took the Schedule into account as a guideline for computation of compensation even though the accident in the aforesaid case had taken place long before enactment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The provisions of Section 163A and/or Schedule did not come up for consideration. The Supreme Court in effect and substance held that the said Schedule could provide the guidelines for computation of compensation in other cases as well. 17. The aforesaid provisions, however, fell for consideration in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 3 WBLR (SC) 700. In this Case, the Supreme Court held as follows: “It is also very difficult for the respondents in a claim petition to produce evidence to show that the deceased was spending a considerable part of the income on himself or that he was contributing only a small part of the income on his family. Therefore, it became necessary to standardise the deductions to be made under the head of personal and living expenses of the deceased. This lead to the practice of deducting towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, one-third of the income if the deceased was married, and one-half (50%) of the income if the deceased was a bachelor. This practice was evolved out of experience, logic and convenience. In fact one-third deduction got statutory recognition under the Second Schedule to the Act, in respect of claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(“the MV Act”, for short). But, such percentage of deduction is not an inflexible rule and offers merely a guideline. ” 18. This practice was evolved out of experience, logic and convenience. In fact one-third deduction got statutory recognition under the Second Schedule to the Act, in respect of claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(“the MV Act”, for short). But, such percentage of deduction is not an inflexible rule and offers merely a guideline. ” 18. In Sarla Verma (supra), the Supreme Court noted the errors in the table of multipliers and held that the multiplier applicable should be 20 for victim upto the age of 15 years, 19 for the age group 15 to 20 years, 18 for the age group 21 to 25 years, 17 for the age group 26 to 30 years, 16 for the age group 31 to 35 years, 15 for the age group 36 to 40 years, 14 for the age group 41 to 45 years, 12 for the age group 46 to 50 years, 10 for the age group 51 to 55 years, 8 for the age group 56 to 60 years, 6 for the age group 61 to 65 years and 5 for victims above 65 years of age. Since the law that has emerged in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court is that the second Schedule serves as a guideline, the second Schedule may be deviated in appropriate cases. Thus, where the victim was young and the claimants are only parents, who are old, the Supreme Court was of the view that the age of the parents might be taken into consideration. 19. Even on the issue of the age that should be taken into account, there is divergence of opinion. In some judgments, the Supreme Court held that the multiplier should be as per the age of the victim, in some judgments, the Supreme Court held that the average age of the surviving claimants should be taken into account where the claimants were older than the victim, particularly, where the claimants are the parents. In some judgments, the Supreme Court held that the age of the younger of the claimants, should be taken into account. 20. Mr. Banerjee cited Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2012) 4 WBLR (SC) 40, where the Supreme Court held that the age of the dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation. 20. Mr. Banerjee cited Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2012) 4 WBLR (SC) 40, where the Supreme Court held that the age of the dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation. Multiplier of 17 had rightly been taken into account having regard to the age of the victim and the High Court was not justified in reducing the multiplier from 17 to 13. The Supreme Court held as follows: “In the case of Sarla Verma (supra) this Court held that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table of the said judgment which starts with an operative multiplier of 18, As the age of the deceased at the time of the death was 26 years, the multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied. The Tribunal taking into consideration the age of the deceased rightly applied the multiplier of 17 but the High Court committed a serious error by not giving the benefit of multiplier of 17 and brining it down to the multiplier of 13. ” 21. However, in Amrit Bhanu Shali (supra), the Supreme Court approved deduction of 50% from the income of the victim towards personal expenses since only the parents were depending on him. 22. In P. S. Somanathan and Ors. Vs. District Insurance Officer and Anr., reported in (2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases 566 : (2011) 3 WBLR 750, the age of the victim was taken into consideration having regard to the fact that there were persons younger that the victim who had been dependent on the victim. In fact, the High Court held that choice of multiplier had to be taken by age of deceased or that of the claimants, whichever was higher. 23. In Laxmi Devi & Ors. Vs. Mohammad Tabbar & Anr., reported in (2008) 2 WBLR (SC) 585, the Supreme Court held that High Court was not correct in bringing down the multiplier to 12, when as per second Schedule under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the multiplier in case of persons between 35 to 40 years of age was 16. However, the Supreme Court considered that the proper multiplier would be ‘14’ and by taking notional income as Rs.24,000/-, awarded Rs.3,36,000/- as compensation to the claimants. 24. However, the Supreme Court considered that the proper multiplier would be ‘14’ and by taking notional income as Rs.24,000/-, awarded Rs.3,36,000/- as compensation to the claimants. 24. It appears that there are some differences of opinion with regard to the multiplier, whether such multiplier should be relatable to the age of the victim or the age of the claimants, in case the claimants were older. Since it may be deduced from the judgment referred to above that the Schedule serves as a guideline and may be deviated in appropriate cases, we are of the view that ordinarily the age of the youngest claimant, should the claimants be older than the victim, should be taken into account. Since the multiplier takes into account the notional longevity of the victim and the consequential loss of dependency of those dependents on the victim, those dependents on the victim could have enjoyed the fruits of the income only for their life. We are, thus, of the view that the income of the claimant appellant no.1, who was 43 years of age at the time of the accident, should be taken into account for the purpose of computation of compensation and the applicable multiplier should be ‘14’, as per the second Schedule as rectified in Sarla Verma (supra). 25. The next question is whether 50% should have been deducted towards personal expenses. We are of the view that deduction of 50% towards personal expenses is not an absolute rule. The second Schedule provides for deduction of only one-third. In the instant case, the income of the claimant was meagre. The claimants claim that the victim earned Rs.40,000/- per annum. In other words, he earned Rs.3,300/- per month. It is most unlikely that a person with two dependents, including a disabled father, would spend 50% on himself. In this context, it would perhaps not be totally out of place to reiterate that there is a marked difference between Section 163A and Section 166, in that, Section 163A provides for computation of compensation as indicated in the second Schedule. In the instant case, having regard to the meagre income of the victim, we are inclined to deduct only one-third towards his personal expenses. 26. In the instant case, having regard to the meagre income of the victim, we are inclined to deduct only one-third towards his personal expenses. 26. The appellant claimants would, thus, be entitled to compensation as follows: Add: Income of the victim @ Rs.100/- per day (Rs.3,000/- p.m. X 12 months) = Rs.36,000/- Less: One-third towards personal expenses of the victim, i.e., Rs.12,000/- –– Rs.12,000/- (Rs.36,000/- ÷ 3) =Rs.24,000/- x 14 Add: Multiplied by applying the multiplier ‘14’ applicable as per second Schedule, as rectified by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Rs.24,000/- X 14) Rs.3,36,000/- Add Funeral expenses + Rs.2,000/- Rs.3,38,000/- Add Loss of Estate + Rs.2,500/- = Rs.3,40,500/- 27. The appellant claimants shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum as per reducing balance from the date of making the claim application till full disbursement to the appellant claimants. 28. The balance amount shall be deposited in the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 29. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.