By the Court.—This is the claimant’s appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under Motor Vehicles Act. The deceased was 17 years old at the time of death which occurred on 17.3.2001 and was earning @ Rs. 125 per day on a fixed salary given by the employer. The Tribunal calculated the income @ Rs. 2500/- per month considering that he used to work 20-22 days in a month. Being unmarried, the Tribunal considered that the deceased would spend two third of his earning on himself. The Tribunal also took the age of the claimants, namely, the parents average age in fixing the multiplier of 15, and on that basis,awarded a sum of Rs. 1,55,000/(One lac fifty five thousand)as compensation.

2. Before this Court the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that admittedly the deceased was getting a fixed salary @ Rs. 125/- per day and, on that basis, his monthly income should be Rs. 3000/- per month whereas the Tribunal has awarded compensation taking his salary at Rs. 2500/- per month and therefore, the award was incorrect. The learned counsel submitted that the multiplier of 15 is also incorrect and as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, 2009(2) TAC 677(SC), the age of the deceased alone has to be considered and therefore the multiplier of 18 should be taken into account. Further, deduction of 2/3 on his personal expenses was on a higher side, in view of the decision in Smt. Sarla Verma (Supra), in which it has been held that the deduction of 50% should be made.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that future prospects has not been taken into consideration and consequently 50% of the income should be enhanced under the category of “future prospects” and thereafter the compensation should be computed.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the income taken by the Tribunal was perfectly justified and, an average of 22 days was taken into consideration which requires no interference. Further, the age of the parents was to be taken into consideration and only the average age of the parents is required to be considered in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt Shanti Pathak and others, 2007(4) TAC 17 (SC) and consequently a multiplier of 15 was rightly taken into consideration by the Tribunal which does not require any interference.

5. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company further submitted that admittedly the deceased was a salaried person and, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and another, 2013(2) ACCD 977(SC), the future prospects for fixed income was not required to be considered.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length we find that the award of the Tribunal is required to be modified. From a perusal of the evidence which has come on record, we find that the employer has categorically stated in his deposition that the deceased used to work 20-22 days per month @ Rs. 125/- per day and, on that basis, the Tribunal calculated the average income at Rs. 2500/-per month. This calculation in our view is based upon a correct appreciation of the evidence which does not require any interference. We consequently hold that the income of the deceased was Rs. 2500/-per month.

7. In the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others (Supra) the Supreme Court held that uniformity should be maintained for determining the compensation in cases of death by following certain well-settled laws one of which was with regard to ascertaining the multiplier.

In paragraph 9, the Supreme Court held :

“Step 2(ascertaining the multiplier)

Having regard to the age of the deceased and the period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Hav