JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral).-This appeal is directed against the JUDGMENT of the learned District Judge, Una in Civil Suit No. 16 of 2000 whereby he has passed a decree of Rs.1,29,600/- against the appellants in favour of the respondents (here-in-after referred to as the plaintiffs). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the plaintiffs, who are the mother, widow and three minor children of the deceased Ravinder Kumar filed a suit claiming damages of Rs.5 lakhs claiming that Ravinder Kumar had been murdered by the defendants Surjit Singh and Rajesh on 17.1.1998. The claimants case was that the deceased was a young man aged about 33 years. He left behind his widowed mother, his own widow and three minor children. The case of the plaintiffs was that the deceased was murdered by the defendants. In fact the defendants faced trial under Section 302 IPC and were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, which conviction has been upheld by this Court. According to defendant No.1, when he appeared in the witness box, he had filed an appeal before the Apex Court but till date no material has been produced by the appellant to show what has happened to the said appeal though various opportunities have been granted. The fact that the defendants were convicted by both the Courts below is admitted by them in cross-examination-in-chief and not denied. In addition thereto PW-4 Adesh Kumar, who is an eye witness in his examination-in-chief has clearly stated that the defendants had willfully caused the death of the deceased without any rhyme or reason. When he was cross-examined not even one question was put to him in this regard meaning thereby that the defendants admitted that they had killed the deceased. Therefore, it stands established on record that the death of the deceased Ravinder Kumar took place at the hands of the defendants. 3. Next comes the question of quantum. The learned trial Court has only awarded Rs.1,29,600/-. Shri Atul Jhingan, learned counsel for the appellant No.1 contends that whereas in the discussion portion the trial Court held that the appropriate multiplier is 16 while calculating the compensation multiplier of 18 has been used. This appears to be correct. However, I am of the considered view that the compensation awarded is extremely low and cannot be reduced any further. The deceased was only 33 years old. This appears to be correct. However, I am of the considered view that the compensation awarded is extremely low and cannot be reduced any further. The deceased was only 33 years old. He belongs to the poorer section of the society. His death took place in the year 1998. Even if the minimum wages applicable in the year 1998 are taken into consideration the deceased would have earned at least 1500 per month, if not more. The learned trial Court has assessed the contribution of the deceased towards the family members at only 600/- per month. This is extremely low. In the poorer section of the society the bread earner does not spend such a huge amount on himself and his contribution to his family members would have been much higher. Though there may be error in the multiplier in use, the damages awarded are in fact abysmally low. There are no cross-objections otherwise I would have had no hesitation in enhancing the damages. 4. Keeping in view the above discussion, I find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.