S.K. Mahajan, J.
2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order.
3. Though respondents 1 and 2 have not been served but as they were ex-parte before the Tribunal and the compensation under the award is to be paid only by respondent no.3, I have not considered it necessary to serve the said respondents.
4. The short point involved in the case is whether the Tribunal has applied the correct multiplier while arriving at the compensation payable to the claimants. It is admitted case of the parties that the date of birth of the deceased was 5.8.1934, and he died in the accident on 2.6.1994. The age of the deceased at the time of the accident was, therefore, less than 60 years. The Tribunal while arriving at the compensation has applied the multiplier of five. It is now well-settled that unless there are special reasons to deviate from the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, the Courts and the Tribunal should normally adhere to the guidelines mentioned in the said Schedule. As per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act for arriving at just compensation in the case of the persons between ages of 55 to 60 years, the multiplier of 8 should be applied. Since the Tribunal had applied the multiplier of 5, there is an error apparent on the face of the order. Applying the multiplier of 8 to the loss of dependency of Rs.20,004/-, the appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,60,032/- towards loss of dependency. Adding to this, the sum of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, loss of consortium, etc., the appellant would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.1,70,032/- or say Rs.1,70,100/-.
5. I, accordingly, allow this appeal modify the award and direct that the appellant will be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,70,100/-. The appellants will also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of application before the tribunal till payment. Compensation will be distributed in the proportion mentioned in the award.