The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the multiplier method and the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in determining just compensation for victims of accidents, emphasizing the need to avoid making sweeping assumptions about the income of the victims and the importance of providing a deterrent.

1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby the compensation of Rs.37,10,000/-has been awarded to respondent Nos.1 and 2. The appellant seeks reduction of the award amount.

2. The accident dated 8th February, 2001 resulted in the death of Saurabh Chauhan. The deceased was aged 11 years at the time of the accident and was a student of 5th standard. The deceased was survived by his parents who filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.37,10,000/- to the claimants.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged at the time of hearing of this appeal that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is highly exorbitant. The Claims Tribunal has assumed the income of Rs.30,000/-in respect of the child without any basis.

4. The father of the deceased appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and deposed that the deceased was a brilliant student of 5th standard of D.L.D.A.V. Model School, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. The report cards of 3rd and 4th standard were proved as Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3. The deceased had secured 78.9% marks in 3rd standard and 80.9% marks in 4th standard. The deceased had also participated in various competitions. The merit certificates of various competitions were proved as Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/7. The deceased had secured 1st position in English and Hindi rhyme competition in LKG as per Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/5. The deceased had also participated in the Intra School Bournvita Quiz Contest on 31st August, 2000 as per Ex.PW1/6. The deceased had also participated voluntarily in Cancer Awareness Campaign of Cancer Aid Society as per Ex.PW1/7. PW-1, father of the deceased was working as a teacher in a government school and his wife was working with Allahabad Bank. The deceased was ambitious to become an Engineer. The elder brother of the deceased was an Engineering student.

5. In Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy & Ors. v. UOI, 104 (2003) DLT 234 (DB), the Division Bench of this Court applied the multiplier method and the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to compute the compensation payable to the victims of the Uphaar Tragedy. The Division Bench held that the victims of the fire incident belonged to reasonably well-placed families and presumed that the average income of the victims above age of 20 years to be not less than Rs.15,000/- per month, 1/3rd was deducted towards the personal expenses and the multiplier of 15 was applied to compute the compensation as Rs.18,00,000/-. With respect to the children, the Division Bench awarded compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The Division Bench also awarded interest @ 9% per annum. The findings of the Division Bench of this Court are reproduced hereunder :-

“109. The Supreme Court in G.M. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs) and Ors. (supra), has held that the multiplier method of compensation was the logically sound and well established method for determining the compensation. It was held that a departure might be justified only in rare and extra ordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases. It has also been held by the Supreme Court in Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, etc. that unless there were special reasons, the Court should not deviate from the schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act in arriving at just compensation payable to the victims of the road accident. The principles laid down in the said judgment can also be applied in the present case. Though the actual income of none of the deceased is on record but having regard to the fact that all those persons who had either died or were injured were sitting in the balcony where the rate of admission was Rs.50/- per seat, it can safely be concluded that the victims of the fire incident belong to reasonably well placed families and this Court will, therefore, not be in error in holding that the average income of each one of the victims above the age of 20 years was not less than Rs.15,000/- per month.