ORDER

The short question which arises for our consideration is : whether the High Court is right in reducing the multiplier from 15 to 10 in computing the compensation payable to the claimants on the ground of death of one Mr. Anar Kishan Kaul? So far other points decided by the High Court neither we find any error in it nor serious contentions which require any interference by us.

2. The brief facts are that the aforesaid Mr. Kaul was an Executive Engineer in the Department of Irrigation and was the husband of the Appellant No. 1 and father of Appellant Nos. 2 and 3, who died in a road accident in 1988. The multiplier method is logically sound and well-settled and other method should be applied only in exceptional cases. The reason for reducing the multiplier seems to be based on the fact that the deceased was likely to be superannuated after 8 years and hence the multiplier was reduced from 15 to 10.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. We find interference by the High Court on the above basis only is not based on sound reasoning. Tribunal has taken into consideration over all considerations. We find there are different judgments by this Court giving different multiplier. This