JUDGMENT : T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. The appellant in M.A.C.A No.735 of 2014 is the Insurance Company and the claimants have filed the Cross Objection. 2. We heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Sri Mathews Jacob and Sri Mathew John for the claimants. 3. The claimants namely 4 in number are respectively the widow, minor children and the mother of late Sri Remy Thomas, who died in a motor vehicle accident. The accident occurred in Mumbai town at 6.45 p.m. on 20.10.2009 while he was riding MH-02/AT-4656 motorcycle. 4. When the motorcycle reached near LBS Marg in front of Jain Mandir bus stop, a Taurus Truck bearing Reg. No. MH- 04/CP-8222 came from the back side and hit on the motorcycle. As a result of it, the deceased Remy Thomas fell down and sustained fatal injuries. The Truck ran over the body of the deceased. The vehicle was being driven by the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal and the 1st respondent before the Tribunal is the registered owner of the vehicle. A total amount of Rs. 1,10,00,080/- was claimed by the claimants under various heads. 5. The deceased was working in a Multinational Company, namely, `Polaris Software Lab Ltd.' as a Senior Project Head. He had completed his M.C.A degree from Bharatiyar University. Initially he joined Virat Datatech Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai in the year 1998 and he joined Polaris Software Ltd. in the year 2000. He was working as a System Engineer. It is also claimed that he had secured rating as "outstanding". 6. The monthly salary claimed as on the date of death was Rs. 58,306/-.The Tribunal, going by the award passed, adopted the multiplier of 13 and the loss of dependency was calculated at Rs. 76,64,280/-. Rs. 1 lakh was granted towards loss of consortium to the widow. As far as the head under loss of love and affection for the two minor children, Rs. 75,000/- each was granted. Rs. 25,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate. For the special damages, Rs. 50,500/- was granted which represent the expenses for bringing the dead body to his native place etc. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 80,00,000/- was granted as compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition namely 20.10.2009 till the date of payment. Proportionate cost has also been awarded. 7. For the special damages, Rs. 50,500/- was granted which represent the expenses for bringing the dead body to his native place etc. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 80,00,000/- was granted as compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition namely 20.10.2009 till the date of payment. Proportionate cost has also been awarded. 7. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company Sri Mathews Jacob mainly raised five contentions. It was contended that as regards the salary obtained by the deceased, except the evidence of PW1 the widow, no one has been examined to prove the crucial documents. It is therefore submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly determined the multiplicand. It is further submitted that even going by the salary certificate Ext.A18, the amount will be Rs. 49,779/-. But the monthly salary has been taken as Rs. 58,306/- going by para.13 of the judgment. A further amount representing 50% of the income has been awarded towards future prospects of the deceased. It is submitted that after taking the total annual income certain amounts have been deducted towards income tax and the multiplicand was fixed accordingly, which is not justified being an incorrect method. 8. Apart from the same, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that when the multiplicand is so high, the Tribunal should have balanced the total award amount by fixing it, in accordance with the general principle, i.e. just and fair compensation. In that context, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan [2002(3) KLT S.N 52 (C.No.73) SC] and submitted that thereupon a lesser multiplier ought to have been taken by the Tribunal. Lastly the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the cost awarded is also excessive. It is also submitted that the deduction towards personal expenses at ?rd was done correctly. It is submitted that the mother of the deceased cannot be said to be a dependent. 9. In answer to the above contentions, the learned Counsel for the respondents Sri Mathew John submitted that the Tribunal has not adopted the actual multiplier in tune with the decision in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ]. According to the learned counsel, the actual multiplier should have been 15, but instead 13 alone was taken. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ]. According to the learned counsel, the actual multiplier should have been 15, but instead 13 alone was taken. The said multiplier has been lowered by adopting a wrong principle of law namely by relying on the employment given to the widow under the compassionate appointment scheme, and treating it as a pecuniary advantage. It is submitted that the compassionate appointment which was given to the widow cannot be taken as a pecuniary advantage receivable by her on account of her husband's death going by the decision in Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan [2013(2) KLT 748 (SC)]. If that be so, the learned counsel submitted that the multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal being faulty, the Cross Objection in that regard filed by the respondents is liable to be allowed. 10. As far as the question whether the deduction for personal expenses should be by way of ?rd or ¼th, the learned counsel submitted that the evidence will show that the mother of the deceased was a dependent. PW1 has given evidence clearly that the mother was staying with them even before the date of the accident at Mumbai and after the second child was born, all of them have returned back and the mother is still residing with them. It is submitted that in the light of the above, the Tribunal has wrongly calculated the personal expenses of the deceased by deducting ?rd instead of ¼th. 11. The learned counsel further submitted that in the light of the Rules regarding fees payable to Advocates which have been amended as per Notification No.D1-76211/2008 dated 31.05.2012, the Tribunal has calculated the Senior Advocate Fee and Junior Advocate Fee correctly and only reasonable cost as permitted alone is granted. 12. The first question is whether the multiplicand arrived at by the Tribunal is correct or not. The evidence in this regard relied upon by the Tribunal is Exts.A9 and A15 that will prove the educational qualification and employment of the deceased. Ext.A18 will show the receipt of salary for the months of August, 2009, September, 2009 and October, 2009 (upto the date of accident) and even though it is clear from Ext.A18 that the monthly salary after deducting the income taxis separately shown, the method adopted by the Tribunal cannot be said to be faulted. Ext.A18 will show the receipt of salary for the months of August, 2009, September, 2009 and October, 2009 (upto the date of accident) and even though it is clear from Ext.A18 that the monthly salary after deducting the income taxis separately shown, the method adopted by the Tribunal cannot be said to be faulted. After taking monthly pay, 50% has been given for the future prospects of the deceased and after multiplying the same, to get annual salary the income tax component has been deducted. Apart from the same with regard to the income tax payment, the acknowledgment is Ext.A21. Therefore it is a case where actually the income tax was being paid by the deceased and rightly the said component has been taken into consideration by the Tribunal and appropriate deduction has been made in that regard to fix the actual dependency factor. 13. Then the next question is whether the Tribunal was justified in relying upon the documents produced by the claimants to prove the monthly salary. 14. What we find from the evidence is that the deceased after his initial appointment in the year 1998, he joined the company namely, Polaris Software Ltd. in the year 2000. The documents produced by the claimants will show that at the time of employment he had an annual salary of Rs. 4,64,845/- as revealed from Exts.A12 to A15 letters issued by the said company. Ext.A13 will show that his salary was increased to Rs. 5,14,428/-. Ext.A14 will show that he had put in 5 years service in the said company. Claimants relied upon Ext.A15 to show that he was being given a consolidated amount towards annual performance driven pay and an amount of Rs. 16,671/- has been shown in Ext.A15. The pattern of giving annual performance driven pay is clear from the amount given in 2005 namely, Rs. 22,116/- and Rs. 26,218/- in 2006 and in 2007. This is clear from Ext.A15 itself. Ext.A16 is the identity card issued by the Polaris Software Ltd. 15. We will now come to Ext.A18. The strong objection raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that Ext.A18 cannot be said to be a properly drawn salary certificate whereas the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that it was issued to the first claimant who is working in the same company, now on getting compassionate appointment. We will now come to Ext.A18. The strong objection raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that Ext.A18 cannot be said to be a properly drawn salary certificate whereas the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that it was issued to the first claimant who is working in the same company, now on getting compassionate appointment. Therefore it is submitted that no iota of doubt could be created as far as the said document. We find from Ext.A18 that the gross salary for August, 2009 is shown as Rs. 58,306/- which is the same for September, 2009. In October, 2009 as on the date of accident the amount due to him was Rs. 37,617/-. It is clear from the said certificate that the annual pay after payment of income tax is Rs. 49,780/-, Rs. 49,779/- and Rs. 35,946/- respectively for the months August, September and October, 2009. 16. In a proceedings of this nature before the Tribunal, unless the veracity of the documents is strongly challenged and strong grounds are pointed out before the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the reliance placed on by the Tribunal on these documents can be said to be faulty. The documents produced will show that from time to time the deceased was being informed of the benefit and other remunerations he may expect for continuing his service in the company. All these were properly conveyed to the deceased which can be seen on a proper verification of these documents. As far as Ext.A18 is concerned, it is explained by the learned counsel for the respondents that the same was issued on a proper application filed by the widow. It is clear from the said document that it is issued really showing the amount of last drawn salary of the deceased. We find no reason to doubt the veracity or correctness of the document Ext.A18 in the light of the fact that it has been marked in evidence through PW1 to prove the receipt of salary for different months by the deceased. The same is the case with Exts.A9 to A17. Apart from the same, she being employed in the same company on getting compassionate appointment, they have been properly issued to her. Therefore it cannot be said that these documents have not been properly proved. The same is the case with Exts.A9 to A17. Apart from the same, she being employed in the same company on getting compassionate appointment, they have been properly issued to her. Therefore it cannot be said that these documents have not been properly proved. In the light of the above, the method adopted by the Tribunal in para.14 and 15 by adding 50% of the income also towards future prospects of the deceased which method is permitted by the Apex Court in the decision in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh [2013 ACJ 1403], we cannot find fault with the Tribunal in fixing monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 87,459/-. 17. The Tribunal in para.16 of the judgment directed to deduct ?rd towards the personal living expenses of the deceased even though it is noticed that the dependents in this case are 4. Going by the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (supra), especially from paragraphs 26 to 30, what is clear is that the deduction towards personal expenses is being calculated on a standardised method. The Apex /court in that case considered various earlier decisions and it was held in para.30 as follows: "30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (?rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (¼th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6 and one-fifth (?th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six." If the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, the deduction permitted is ¼th. This factor has been accepted since in each case it may not be possible to get the details of expenses the deceased may incur for his own purposes. 18. Then the question is whether the mother of the deceased is a dependent. This factor has been accepted since in each case it may not be possible to get the details of expenses the deceased may incur for his own purposes. 18. Then the question is whether the mother of the deceased is a dependent. The learned Senior Counsel Sri Mathews Jacob submitted that there are other siblings for the deceased and therefore it cannot be said that she was a dependent of the deceased while the deceased was working in Mumbai. In regard to the same what we find from the averments in the claim petition and the evidence of PW1 is that the mother was there with their family in Mumbai and just before his death they came back to Kerala after the delivery of the second child and they are residing together. Even now the mother is being taken care of by the widow. In the cross examination no challenge has been made to the above statement of PW1. The said explanation given by her in the proof affidavit is not challenged at all. In that view of the matter, we find no reason to accept the argument that the mother is not a dependent of the deceased and therefore the deduction towards personal expenses should have been ¼th and not ?rd. 19. The more important question argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the Insurance Company by relying on United India Insurance Co. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan (supra) is that when the multiplicand is on a higher side, there will be discretion for the Court to adopt a lower multiplier. There a two Judge Bench of the Apex Court has held as follows: "xxx xxx xxx xxx By applying a multiplier other than the schedule multiplier does not mean that any method other than multiplier method has been applied. For some special reasons some deviation from the scheduled multiplier can be made. The amount of multiplicand shall surely be relevant and in case it is a high amount, a lower multiplier can appropriately be applied. xxx xxx xxx xxx" These observations have been heavily relied upon by the Senior Counsel Sri Mathews Jacob. 20. As rightly pointed out by Sri Mathew John the principles for quantification of compensation as evident from the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. xxx xxx xxx xxx" These observations have been heavily relied upon by the Senior Counsel Sri Mathews Jacob. 20. As rightly pointed out by Sri Mathew John the principles for quantification of compensation as evident from the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (supra) do not give any discretion for the Tribunal to vary from the multiplier that has been fixed by the Apex court in the said judgment. The decision in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (supra) has elaborately considered the various principles with regard to the fixation of multiplier, multiplicand and other general and special damages. 21. We find that in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan [2013(2) KLT 304 (S.C)] by a 3 Judge Bench, the said question is no longer res integra. The legal question that was addressed before the Bench was whether the multiplier specified in the second schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 should be scrupulously applied in all cases. The decision in United India Insurance Co. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan (supra) relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has been discussed in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the judgment. After considering the various decisions, the Apex Court in para.32 held as follows: "32. ...... ................. ....... ......... In our view, the determination of compensation based on multiplier method is the best available means and the most satisfactory method and must be followed invariably by the tribunals and courts." With regard to the multiplier finalised in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (supra), it was held in para.34 that "if the said multiplier is followed, the wide variations in the selection of multiplier in the claims of compensation in fatal accident cases can be avoided. A standard method for selection of multiplier is surely better than a criss-cross of varying methods", which is the view taken by the Apex Court. (supra), it was held in para.34 that "if the said multiplier is followed, the wide variations in the selection of multiplier in the claims of compensation in fatal accident cases can be avoided. A standard method for selection of multiplier is surely better than a criss-cross of varying methods", which is the view taken by the Apex Court. After discussing various judgments, in para.40 the conclusions are summed up and sub paragraphs (i) and (iv) to (vii) are reproduced below: "(i) In the applications for compensation made under Section 166 of the 1988 Act in death cases where the age of the deceased is 15 years and above, the Claims Tribunals shall select the multiplier as indicated in Column (4) of the table prepared in Sarla Verma (2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC) : (2009) 6 SCC 121 ) read with para.42 of that judgment. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (iv) The claims Tribunals shall follow the steps and guidelines stated in para.19 of Sarla Verma (2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC) : (2009) 6 SCC 121 ) for determination of compensation in cases of death. (v) While making addition to income for future prospects, the Tribunals shall follow paragraph 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma (2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC) : (2009) 6 SCC 121 ). (vi) Insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, it is directed that the Tribunals shall ordinarily follow the standards prescribed in paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma (2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC) : (2009) 6 SCC 121 ) subject to the observations made by us in para.38 above. (vii) The above propositions mutatis mutandis shall apply to all pending matters where above aspects are under consideration." The same is a complete answer to the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the Insurance Company and therefore we reject the same. 22. As far as the fixation of multiplier two aspects will come up - in cases where the deceased is a salaried person, the actual salary will give the guidance; along with the actual salary, 50% more can also be added towards future prospects going by the decisions of the Apex Court. Hence the Tribunal will be justified in adopting this clear and explicit method where there is no room for any guess work also. Hence the Tribunal will be justified in adopting this clear and explicit method where there is no room for any guess work also. What is actually due to the deceased, with the deductions will go to the claimants. In that view of the matter, we find no justification for reducing the multiplier in a case where the deceased was earning substantial income, which gives guidance to the Tribunal and there is clear evidence also to prove the same. The Tribunal cannot vary the same on its own without reference to any other legal principles after the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (supra). The method as canvassed by the appellant's learned Senior Counsel therefore cannot be accepted. Therefore we reject the said contention. 23. As regards the quantum fixed, one of the contentions raised is, Rs. 75,000/- each has been granted to the two minor children under the head loss of love and affection. It is submitted that even going by the various decisions of the Apex Court, a uniform pattern adopted is Rs. 1 lakh towards loss of love and affection. Therefore even though Sri Mathew John has also submitted that the same is justified, we will fix Rs. 1 lakh towards loss of love and affection for the 2 minor children. 24. The last contention is with regard to the cost awarded. Of course the cost awarded on a cost memo filed is a substantial amount, namely, Rs. 6,83,216/-. It includes the Senior Advocate fee @ Rs. 4,02,400/- and Junior Advocate fee @ Rs. 2,01,200/- apart from the Court Fees Rs. 79,373/-. We find that only proportionate cost have been allowed by the Tribunal. Going by Rule 10 of the Rules Regarding Fees Payable to Advocates fees shall be one half in contested and one third in uncontested cases of the allowable on the amount or value of the relief. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to reduce the cost awarded even though Sri Mathews Jacob submitted that the award of cost is the discretion of the Court. Of course in an appeal, as already the Tribunal has exercised its discretion, unless there is a legal issue involved we will not be justified in varying the cost portion of the award. 25. Of course in an appeal, as already the Tribunal has exercised its discretion, unless there is a legal issue involved we will not be justified in varying the cost portion of the award. 25. In the light of the above, we recalculate the quantum as follows by adopting the multiplier 15 and deducting ¼th towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Hence Loss of dependency Rs. 55,271X12X15 = Rs. 99,48,780.00. The other components are, Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 1 lakh towards loss of consortium, Rs. 1 lakh towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 10,000/- for loss of estate. Rs. 50,500/- for special damages has already been granted by the Tribunal for bringing the dead body. In that view, the total award amount will be Rs. 1,02,34,280/- which we round off to Rs. 1,02,34,200/- (Rupees One crore two lakhs thirty four thousand two hundred only). We are not varying the rate of interest, already awarded @ 7.5% per annum and hence the amount will carry interest @ 7.5% per annum as granted by the Tribunal. Therefore the appeal M.A.C.A No.735 of 2014 is dismissed and the Cross Objection 54 of 2014 is allowed. The appellant will deposit the amount before the Tribunal (less the amount if any already paid) within a period of five months and on such deposit being made, it will be disbursed to the claimants in the proportion shown in the award of the Tribunal. In both the Appeal and in the Cross Objection, there is no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.