Mr. K. Kannan, J.: (Oral) - In the petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act by the appellants seeking for compensation for death of the boy aged 20, the Tribunal took the income at Rs.3,000/- per month, made a 1/3rd deduction but applied a multiplier of 8 on the basis of age of the parents. If the deceased’s annual earning was less than Rs.40,000/- and a provision is invoked under Section 163-A, it shall be impermissible for a Court to apply any other formula than what is given in Schedule II. Schedule II provides a uniform rate of application of multiplier to be dependant on the age of deceased. This provision was found certain curtain several mistakes by judgment of the Supreme Court in UPSRTC v. Trilok Chandra 1996(2) ACJ 831. The provision has stood on without being statutorily modified or struck down by any judicial pronouncement. Pointing out to a mistake is not the same as striking it down. The various formulas which were admitted to reconcile by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107 : 2010(1) Law Herald (Acc.) (SC) 65] : 2009(6) SCC 121 has not suggested anywhere that Schedu