JUDGMENT The appellants (claimants) have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act against the judgment and order dated 31.05.2003 passed by the learned V-Additional District Judge, Faizabad for enhancement of compensation. 2. From the record it comes out that the claimants who are parents and brother of the deceased Mohd. Naseem had filed a claim petition in respect of an accident occurred on 04.04.2001 at about 02.00 p.m. near Jhanjharia Pul, P.S. Cantt. District Faizabad. It is said that when deceased Naseem along with his wife Amina Begum (deceased) were going from Faizabad city to their home at Bharthipur Moiya Begumganj, the truck bearing registration no. UP78 T/6349, which was being driven rashly and negligently hit the deceased as a result of which they succumbed to their injuries. The claim was contested by the Insurance Company, who denied the accident in the manner as alleged by the claimants and also stated that vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance. The tribunal on the basis of record framed following issues: - (i) As to whether on 04.04.2001 at about 02.00 p.m. near Jhanjharia bridge, Mumtz Nagar, P.S. Cantt. District Faizabad the Truck bearing No. UP78 T/6349, was being driven carelessly and in high speed causing injuries to Naseem and his death? (ii) As to whether the driver of the vehicle was having valid driving license at the time of accident? (iii) As to whether the vehicle in question was insured with the New India Insurance Company? (iv) As to whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if yes, then how much and from whom? 3. The Tribunal on appreciation of oral evidence and analysis of documentary evidence set the issue no. 1 in affirmative and held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Truck. 4. As regard the income of the deceased, the Tribunal after careful examination of the material on record and oral evidence, came to the conclusion that though the deceased was a Tailor but in absence of any documentary evidence it is not possible to hold that he was earning Rs. 7,500/- per month. Therefore, in view of the various decisions of the Apex Court, the Tribunal assessed monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum. 7,500/- per month. Therefore, in view of the various decisions of the Apex Court, the Tribunal assessed monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum. The Tribunal on this annual income held that Rs. 14,000/- per annum was being spent by the deceased towards his personal expenses and Rs. 22,000/- towards dependents in the family. In these circumstances, the Tribunal proceeded to determine the compensation on the income of Rs. 22,000/- per annum. 5. Looking to the age of the deceased and that of parents, who are very old, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 5 (22000 x 5) and held that the claimants are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,10,000/-. In the head of love and affection Rs. 10,000/- was awarded whereas for funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- was awarded. Thus the Tribunal directed for payment of Rs. 1,22,000/- with 9% interest from the date 12.08.2002. The Tribunal has observed in the concluding paragraphs that Wali Mohammad (respondent no. 1 in the claim petition) was the owner of the vehicle No. UP78 T/6349. The vehicle was being driven by Rudal @ Jahan Shah (respondent no. 3 in the claim petition) under the supervision and direction of Mohammad Wali (respondent no. 2 in the claim petition). The Tribunal further observed that the vehicle was insured with New India Insurance Company and was being driven in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance. Therefore, the insurance company was directed to pay the compensation within a period of sixty days together with interest @ 9% per annum and after expiry of sixty days the interest @ 12% will be payable on the awarded amount. 6. According to the appellants the Tribunal has awarded less compensation and have applied wrong multiplier on the age of the parents and not of the deceased, which is highly erroneous. The Tribunal has also not awarded compensation under various other heads like shock and agony. 7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company while defending the award, submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Therefore, there is no good ground to enhance the compensation. 8. The Tribunal has also not awarded compensation under various other heads like shock and agony. 7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company while defending the award, submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Therefore, there is no good ground to enhance the compensation. 8. As to what is just compensation we would like to refer the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ], wherein the Apex Court answered the question relating to 'just compensation' in accidnt matters and while reiterating the principles laid down in the General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and others : (1994) 2 SCC 176 observed as under: - "16. Compensation awarded does not become "just compensation" merely because the Tribunal considers it to be just. For example, if on the same or similar facts (say the deceased aged about 40 years having annual income of rs. 45,000 leaving his surviving wife and child), one Tribunal awards Rs. 10,00,000 another awards Rs. 5,00,000, and yet another awards Rs. 1,00,000, all believing that the amount is just, it cannot be said that what is awarded in the first case and the last case is just compensation. "Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well-settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit. 17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision-making process and the decisions. While it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards in assessing compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awards in the same range. When the factors/inputs are the same, and the formula/legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity, and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation. In Susamma Thomas, this Court stated : (SCC p. 185, para 16) "16. .... The proper method of computation is the multiplier method. When the factors/inputs are the same, and the formula/legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity, and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation. In Susamma Thomas, this Court stated : (SCC p. 185, para 16) "16. .... The proper method of computation is the multiplier method. Any departure, except in exceptional and extraordinary cases, would introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of uniformity and an element of unpredictability, for the assessment of compensation." 9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that Tribunal has wrongly deducted Rs. 14,000/- in lump sump towards personal expenses, when law is well settled that 1/3rd of the monthly income be deducted towards the personal expenses, which should have been Rs. 12,000/- (1/3rd of Rs. 36,000/-). 10. As a matter of fact for assessing the loss, first point is to determine the monthly income of the deceased then deducting therefrom the amount spent on the deceased and thus assessing the loss to the dependents of the deceased. The annual dependency assessed in this manner, then is to be multiplied by the use of appropriate multiplier. In other word the annual dependency is worked out and then multiplier by the estimated useful life of the deceased. As regards the applicability of multiplier, the Tribunal had applied the multiplier of 5 on the age of the parents of the deceased, which in our view is wholly incorrect. The multiplier is applied on the age of the deceased/victim and not on the age of dependents. In the instant case the Tribunal on appreciation of oral evidence and analysis of documentary evidence determined the age of the deceased as 28 years. Therefore, as per Second Schedule of Motor Vehicle Act the multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied. 11. In these circumstances, the compensation payable to the claimants shall be as follows: - Rs. 24,000/- (annual income) x 18 (multiplier)=4,32,000/-. 12. Accordingly, the judgment and award dated 31.05.2003 is modified and the claimant shall be paid Rs. 4,32,000/- (Rs. Four Lac Thirty Two Thousand only) in addition to the amount awarded in other heads i.e. Rs. 10,000/- for love and affection + Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus a total sum of Rs. 4,44,000/- together with interest @ 9% as awarded by the Tribunal to be paid to the claimants within 90 days. 4,32,000/- (Rs. Four Lac Thirty Two Thousand only) in addition to the amount awarded in other heads i.e. Rs. 10,000/- for love and affection + Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus a total sum of Rs. 4,44,000/- together with interest @ 9% as awarded by the Tribunal to be paid to the claimants within 90 days. In case the Insurance Company fails to deposit the amount within the period prescribed above, the interest @ 12% will be payable on the awarded amount. 13. Appeal stands partly allowed in above terms.