JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal is directed against judgment and award dated 24.03.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balotra ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,11,339/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application i.e. 13.05.2011. 2. The application for compensation was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act'). It was claimed that deceased was involved in the work of welding etc. and on account of the accident, which occurred on 10.10.2010, whereby while doing welding work, the Truck in question caught fire, resulting in Mohd. Arif deceased suffering grievous injuries and he died on 17.10.2010. Though compensation in terms of Section 163-A of the Act was claimed but it was also prayed that compensation be awarded under various heads. The application was contested by appellant Insurance Company. 3. The Tribunal after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that death of Mohd. Arif occurred on account of use of vehicle in question and also found that deceased was having income of Rs. 40,000/- per annum and as he was found to be aged 22 years, after deducting ?rd towards personal expenses, compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,52,339/-, after applying multiplier of 17, was awarded. A further sum of Rs. 23,000/- towards medical bills was also awarded. The Tribunal thereafter went on to award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of clothes, mobile phone and cash, Rs. 10,000/- towards transport expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of love & affection and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses and in all awarded a sum of Rs. 7,11,339/-. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there was no proof pertaining to the income of the deceased and, therefore, the Tribunal committed error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 40,000/- per annum. Further submissions were made that though the application was filed under Section 163-A of the Act, various sums have been awarded, which are beyond the scope of Second Schedule, according to which, only the compensation should have been awarded and, therefore, the award impugned deserves to be modified. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants supported the award impugned. Further submissions were made that though the application was filed under Section 163-A of the Act, various sums have been awarded, which are beyond the scope of Second Schedule, according to which, only the compensation should have been awarded and, therefore, the award impugned deserves to be modified. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants supported the award impugned. It was submitted that looking to the age of the deceased, the compensation awarded is meagre and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference. Further submissions were made that the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 17, which is contrary to the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation : (2009) 6 SCC 121 and, therefore, the multiplier of 18 should be applied. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. In so far as the income assessed by the Tribunal is concerned, admittedly the deceased was involved in work of welding at a workshop, undertaking which, the Truck caught fire, resulting in grievous injuries to the deceased, to which he succumbed and, therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased was not earning Rs. 40,000/- annually. 8. In view thereof, the assessment of income at Rs. 40,000/- by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. 9. So far as the multiplier of 17 adopted by the Tribunal is concerned, Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments have laid down that the table as comprised in Second Schedule is faulty and in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) a table has been provided, which is just. 10. In view thereof, a multiplier of 18 is required to be adopted in the present case. 11. There is substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has awarded various sums, which are contrary to the Second Schedule, which provides for award of funeral expenses at Rs. 2,000/-, loss of consortium at Rs. 5,000/-, loss of estate at Rs. 2,500/- and medical expenses at not exceeding Rs. 15,000/-. 12. Applying the said Second Schedule to the facts of the present case, the compensation is determined as under:- Heads Rs. 2,000/-, loss of consortium at Rs. 5,000/-, loss of estate at Rs. 2,500/- and medical expenses at not exceeding Rs. 15,000/-. 12. Applying the said Second Schedule to the facts of the present case, the compensation is determined as under:- Heads Rs. Loss of income 40,000 - 13,333 = 26,667 x 18 4,80,006 Medical expenses 15000 Loss of consortium 5000 Loss of estate 2500 Funeral expenses 2000 Total 5,04,506 Rounded off to 5,04,500 13. No other point has been argued/pressed. 14. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The award dated 24.03.2015 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that instead of Rs. 7,11,339/- the claimants would be entitled to a compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,04,500/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application i.e. 13.05.2011. The amount would be disbursed to the claimants in the proportion as directed by the Tribunal. Looking to the fact that the death had occurred in the year 2011 and no amount has been paid to the claimants so far, the amount would be paid in the saving bank account of the claimants. 15. The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of amount of compensation along with interest within a period of six weeks from the date of this judgment.