JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents-claimants, it transpires that the accident occurred on 21.05.2008 at 8 AM when Mr. Suresh Chandra, a youth of 30 years, was traveling in KMOU Bus No. UK-02-2305, which was running from Pithoragarh to Bageshwar. 2. During the journey of serpentine tardy hilly roads, the bus fell into deep ditch after swerving from the main road, resulted the occurrence. Sri Suresh Chandra lost his life in the accident, leaving behind him a young wife Smt. Munni Devi, in addition to his old parents, namely, Shri Trilochan Tiwari and Smt. Savitri Devi. The name of these old parents was appeared in the Claim Petition but they have not joined in the array of the parties as claimants in the petition. 3. The accident, insurance cover of the bus and losing of life of Mr. Suresh Chandra has not been denied by the insurance company. The only dispute, which is being raised before this Court, pertains to the quantum of compensation. 4. The Claim Petition was filed claiming the compensation of Rs.25,25,000/- and as against, the compensation of Rs.12,30,000/- has been awarded by learned Tribunal, which is to be exigible from the insurance company. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants has put forth his submissions before the Court that the vocation of deceased was to run a shop under the name and style of Automobile Works for repairing the taxies and other like vehicles, besides, he was the owner of his own taxi (Max Cab bearing no. UP-028/0490). 6. Nothing has been brought on the record regarding proof of running of such a shop, except the statement of widow of the deceased Smt. Munni Devi. However, LCR does have permit of taxi cab owned by the deceased Sri Suresh Chandra. 7. Looking to all the aspects, learned Tribunal assumed income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month, which the deceased might have earned. 8. In such cases, there is always a grey area in the absence of any statutory and straight jacket formulae, so the compensation would basically depend on the evidence available on the record and formulae shown by the Court, are only the guidelines for computation of the compensation, that precisely is the reasons, the Courts lodged a caveat stating “ordinarily”, “normally”, “exceptional circumstances, etc. while suggesting the formulae. 9. Since, nothing substantial evidence has been brought on the record regarding running of automobile shop but proof of owning the taxi is available on the record, therefore, I reduce monthly income of deceased from Rs.9,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month, thereby, annual income comes to Rs.72,000/-. Reducing one-third towards personal expenses, it comes to Rs.48,000/-. 10. As per Sarla Verma Case, the multiplier of “16” should have been applicable instead of “17” for the persons, who were running in the age group between 31 to 35 years. 11. Multiplying it by 16, it comes to Rs.7,68,000/-. Adding Rs.6,000/- towards consortium, as done by learned Tribunal, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.7,74,000/-. Rate of the interest is reduced from 8% to 7%. 12. Accordingly, the award is modified as against what was granted by the learned Tribunal. It shall be distributed in the same proportion/ratio to the widow, father and mother of the deceased, which has been made clear in the impugned judgment by learned Tribunal. Appeal stands disposed of. 13. Rest of the amount shall be deposited by the insurance company within six weeks from today. 14. The compulsory statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the insurance company, shall be remitted back to the Tribunal concerned.