JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J.(Oral):- The appeal is seeking for enhancement of compensation for a person, who was a Senior Medical Officer in Boothgarh. The claimants were wife, two children and mother. His income was proved to be as Rs.6,480/-. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd, adopted a multiplier of 18 and after providing for conventional heads determined a compensation of Rs.9,72,000/-. 2. The learned counsel states that the Tribunal did not take proper note of future prospects of increase and the determination of compensation was grossly low. I was prepared to reappraise the compensation providing for a prospect of future increase in the manner contemplated through the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another- [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107 : 2010(1) Law Herald (Acc.) (SC) 65] : 2009 ACJ 1298 and if we must provide for 30% increase of Rs.6,480/- and deduct 10% going towards income tax since an amount even in excess of Rs.50,000/- at that time was taxable, the average salary would have been Rs.7,582/-. If 1/4th deduction were to be made, the monthly contribution to the family would be Rs.5,686/- and the annual dependence would have been Rs.68,232/-. If a multiplier of 14 is to be taken, appropriate to the age of the deceased, the total amount of compensation will fall short of what was determined by the Tribunal. I see no scope for increase. 3. I believe that the practice of preferring an appeal only because there is an appeal remedy available is wholly unwelcome in these hard days of high pendency of cases. It behoves of counsel to advise parties properly and unless the parameters of determination of compensation are grossly wrong and the compensation is unjust, there ought not to be a needless exercise of preferring an appeal. Here was a case where the Tribunal was applying a multiplier of 18 to a person, who was aged 44 years and by no stretch of imagination could that to be taken as appropriate multiplier. That ought to have sufficiently sensitized the claimants to rest contended with what they got. An accident that wrests a bread winner from the midst of a family causes a deep wedge of injury and hardship. A Court litigation itself is another form of painful exercise for a person to indulge. That ought to have sufficiently sensitized the claimants to rest contended with what they got. An accident that wrests a bread winner from the midst of a family causes a deep wedge of injury and hardship. A Court litigation itself is another form of painful exercise for a person to indulge. Awards of compensation are no lottery and there should be no reason to approach the Court as if to try a luck. In this case, I do not think the appeal was justified. 4. The appeal is dismissed. ------------------------