JUDGMENT Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. Present appeal has been preferred for enhancement of compensation as awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Banda vide judgment and order dated 31.05.2003. 2. Deceased- Prakash Chandra Dwivedi along with his brother- Prem Chandra Dwivedi and Suneel Kumar travelled in a Jeep No.UP78/V5361 on 20.12.1998. Said Jeep met with an accident with Truck No.MP19A/6414. As a result of the accident, the deceased got severely injured and died. 3. Before the Tribunal, oral evidence was led to the effect that the deceased was earning Rs.2,000/- per month, and he was a Jeep Driver. He was 21 years of age. 4. The Tribunal after considering the evidence was of the view that since the deceased was unmarried, he would be spending Rs.12,000/- on himself and Rs.8,000/-on the family members. Thus, applying the multiplier of 17, calculated the compensation, and awarded Rs.2,000/- towards Funeral and last rites, Rs.5,000/- for mental trauma and Rs. 5,000/- for other expenses, thus an amount of Rs.1.76 Lakhs with interest @ 9 % from the date of institution of the claim was awarded. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that when there was no dispute in respect of the income of the deceased i.e. Rs.24,000/- per year, the Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier on 16,000/- after deducting 1/3 from the said income. It is also submitted that multiplier of 17 has been applied whereas the deceased was 21 years of age, therefore, maximum multiplier 18 ought to have been applied. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that no amount has been awarded as consortium and loss of estate. 6. Despite the case is being taken up in the revised call, no one appears for the respondents. 7. From perusal of the impugned judgment and record, it is evident that oral evidence was led to the effect that the deceased was earning Rs.2,000/- per month as Jeep Driver. No evidence was led by the respondents to dispute the said income. It is also settled consistently by this Court that a person would spend 1/3 for maintaining himself and 2/3 for his family. When the deceased was only 21 years of age, applying the multiplier by 17 was not correct. 8. No evidence was led by the respondents to dispute the said income. It is also settled consistently by this Court that a person would spend 1/3 for maintaining himself and 2/3 for his family. When the deceased was only 21 years of age, applying the multiplier by 17 was not correct. 8. Considering the aforesaid fact, I am of the view that when the deceased yearly income of Rs.24,000/- was not in dispute, the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier on 2/3 of the income i.e. Rs.16,000/-, and the multiplier should have been of 18. The Tribunal ought to have awarded some amount towards loss of estate and consortium. 9. In view thereof, I allow this appeal partly, and it is directed to recompute the compensation of 16,000/- with multiplier of 18 and also award on the compensation of Rs.25,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.25,000/- for loss of consortium. 10. Record of the case is returned to the learned Tribunal to calculate the compensation accordingly and the respondents should pay the compensation within a period of 2 months from the date such compensation is recalculated and directed to be paid by the respondents. Any amount paid shall be adjusted from the final compensation which is directed to be recalculated in terms of the judgment passed.