Ajay Rastogi, J.
1. Instant appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura (District Jaipur) ('Tribunal') vide Award dated 6.9.2001 in MACT Case No. 62/01.
2. Claimants are wife, minor son and parents of deceased Ashok Kumar Sharma, aged 28 years, who died on 25.9.2000 in an accident, which took place due to rash & negligent driving of offending jeep No. RJ-21-C-6498. As alleged in claim petition and as per salary certificates (Exhibit 12 to 14), deceased was a part time Accountant engaged with private Firms being paid monthly pay of Rs. 2,500/- by each of three Firms. One Ghan Shyam (AW 4) with whom deceased was employed on part time basis for doing work of accounts of the Firm, in his statement deposed that the deceased was also doing accounts work of other private Firms.
3. The Tribunal after taking note of material on record assessed his monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and after applying multiplier of 17, determined compensation towards loss of financial dependency of the family as Rs. 4,08,000/- (2,000 x 12 x 17) and in all awarded compensation of Rs. 4,93,000/- (including Rs. 15,000/- as consortium to wife, Rs. 5,000/-towards love & affection to each of claimants and Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of future prospects and Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses) to the claimant with interest @ 9% from the date of claim petition till actual payment.
4. Shri K N Tiwari, Counsel for the claimants contends that looking to the age of deceased and nature of his job of an Accountant, aspect of future prospects for computation of just compensation has not been considered by Tribunal in right perspective, and that being so, compensation vide impugned Award is on very lower side, which requires-re-consideration by this Court.
5. Per Contra, Counsel for respondents submits that after taking note of evidence on record and age of the deceased, multiplier of 17 has rightly been applied by the Tribunal and that apart, considering factum of future prospects, just compensation has been awarded, which requires no interference by this Court.
6. I have pondered over the contentions of the parties and with their assistance have perused material on record. Indisputably, the deceased was 28 years of age and working as Accountant in private ?Firms on part time basis as is evident from salary slips (Exhibits 12 to 14) issued by respective Firms, engaged as Accountant in order to earn his livelihood before death in the accident. However, a bare perusal of salary slips (Exhibits 12 to 14) shows that these documents pertained only to the period of few months, with which no prima facie determination can be made with respect to actual income of the deceased. However, in instant case, the Tribunal has not only taken note of future prospects of the deceased but also on totality of evidence brought on record, while making certain guess work, in my considered opinion, has rightly assessed monthly income of deceased as Rs. 3,000/- and after 1/3rd deduction of his personal expenses, rightly determined Rs. 2,000/- as monthly economical dependency of the family. I do not find any error apparent on the face or record in the finding recorded by Tribunal in this regard.
7. However, the Tribunal adopted multiplier of 17, whereas in fact as per 28 years age of deceased, multiplier of 18 as provided in 2nd Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is appropriate for just compensation to be awarded. It is settled law that payment of compensation on the basis of structured formula as provided for under 2nd Schedule to the Act should not be ordinarily be deviated from. That apart, Section 168 of the Act lays down guide tines for determination of amount of compensation in terms of Section 168 thereof, and as laid down in series of decisions, deviation of structured formula can be resorted to only in exceptional cases. Taking an over all conspectus of the matter so also 2nd Schedule to the Act, I consider it proper to apply multiplier of 18 and in that eventuality, claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 4,32,000/- (2000 x 12 x 18) towards financial dependency of the family.
8. As regards compensation awarded by Tribunal on other heads of future prospects (Rs. 50,000/-), consortium to wife (Rs. 15,000/-) & love and affection to parents and children (Rs. 15,000/-) so also funeral expenses, I do not find any justification to disturb finding under this head recorded by the Tribunal.
9. Consequently this appeal is partly allowed and the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 24,0001- (Rs. 5,17,000/- minus Rs. 4,93,0001-awarded by Tribunal) which shall also carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till actual payment. Enhanced compensation with interest shall be paid by Insurance Company through A/c payee bank draft to the claimant within one month. To the above extent, impugned Award stands modified. No order as to costs.