MATHUR, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10. 12. 1998 whereby the learned Single Judge upheld the award for a sum of Rs. 2,12,000/-in favour of the Claimant-respondent and against the appellant passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur, dated 12. 9. 96.
(2.) IT is contended by Mr. B. S. Bhati, learned counsel appearing for the appe-llants, that the learned Judge committed an error in applying the multiplier of 8 years while considering the loss of income to the tune of Rs. 3000/-per month. IT is submitted that the view taken is contrary to the decision of the Apex Court in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation and others vs. Trilok Chandra and others (1), wherein the court has held in terms that multiplier cannot exceed 18. IT is urged that in the said case, the age of the deceased was 26 years. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 24, which was raised by the High court to 34. Both the multipliers were dis-approved by the Apex Court and it was held that multiplier cannot exceed 18. IT is further submitted that in the instant case, the age of the deceased was 58 years and, as such he would not have survived more and, therefore, multiplier of 8 applied by both the courts below is apparently illegal. We are unable to agree-with the submissions of Mr. Bhati. It appears that his submissions are based on merely reading of the Head Note of the decision of the Apex Court in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation's case (supra ). In that case. after considering the number of cases on the question of use of correct mul-tiplier for determination of compensation to be awarded to the legal representatives of the victim of a road accident, the court in para 17 noticed that an important change has been introduced in the Motor Vehicles Act by introducing the amendment insofar as it relates to determination of compensation by insertion of Section 163-A and 163-B in Chapter Xl entitled `insurance of Motor Vehicles Against Third Party Risks'. The Apex Court after examining the provisions of Sec. 163-A and the Schedule observed that a `table' provided under the Schedule can only be used as a guide. The court further observed that the selection of multiplier can not in all cases solely depend on the age of the deceased as in this Schedule, the maximum multiplier provided is 18 years. The court emphasized that the multiplier cannot ex-ceed 18 years. Thus, the multiplier 18 years has been used in the context of the `table' provided in the Schedule. In the instant case, the compensation has been awarded keeping in view the `table' provided in the aforesaid schedule. In view of this in our view, there is no illegality in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. .;