1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs. 5,84,000/- has been awarded to claimants/respondents No.1 to 4. The appellant seeks reduction of the award amount. The accident dated 4th July, 2005 resulted in the death of Amit Dhingra. The deceased was survived by his widow, two minor children and father who filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal. The deceased was aged 23 years at the time of the accident and was running a tent house business. In the absence of documentary proof of income, the Claims Tribunal assumed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 5,000/- per month, deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 17 to compute the loss of dependency at Rs. 6,80,000/-. The Claims Tribunal deducted 20% towards the contributory negligence. The Claims Tribunal further awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards the funeral expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation of dead body, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium. The total compensation awarded is Rs. 5,84,000/-.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged following grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal:-

(i) There is no basis for assuming the income of the deceased to be Rs. 5,000/- per month and the Claims Tribunal should have taken the minimum wages of Rs. 3,468/- per month into consideration. The increase in minimum wages cannot be taken into consideration.

(ii) The multiplier be reduced from 17 to 13.

3. In Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy 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. Deducting 1/3rd for the personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency would not be less than Rs.10,000/- per month or say Rs.1,20,000/- per annum. Applying the multiplier 15 prescribed in the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, in our view, relatives of