THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. Nos. 2580 and 2957 of 2007 Common Judgment: (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2007, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, in O.P. No. 255 of 2006, awarding compensation of Rs. 7,44,000/- with proportionate costs to the claimants, as against their claim of Rs.20,00,000/-. M/s. New India Assurance Company, filed M.A.C.M.A. No. 2580 of 2007 contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is on the higher side and needs reduction, while the claimants filed M.A.C.M.A. No. 2957 of 2007 contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very meagre and needs enhancement. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as arrayed in the O.P. On 08.12.2005, at about 11.00 a.m., while the deceased-Shiva Shivakumar along with his friend were going on a motorcycle bearing No. AP 10D 3978, they met with an accident on the outskirts of Pregnapur, when the DCM bearing No. AP 9W 9011, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, both the deceased and his friend fell down. The deceased who sustained grievous injuries was admitted in Apollo Hospital, where he died while undergoing treatment. A case of rash and negligent driving was registered against the driver of the DCM. On account of the death of the deceased, the claimants, who are his parents, filed O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from the respondents, namely owner of the DCM and the Insurance Company with which the DCM was insured, contending that the deceased was studying 4th year Bachelor of Engineer in Information Technology in CBIT. That had he been alive, after completion of his education, he would have got employment as Software Engineer with monthly salary of Rs.30,000/-, and taken care of them in their old age. Respondent No.1-owner of the DCM remained ex parte. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company, filed counter stating that the deceased drove the motorcycle without any valid licence, that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the DCM by its driver, that respondent No.1 colluded with the claimants and did not report the incident to respondent No.2, that the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant, the claimants have to prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased. They thus prayed that the M.V.O.P. be dismissed. The Tribunal considering the rival pleadings, framed two issues, namely whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the DCM by its driver and whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and from whom. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and marked Exs. A1 to A13, while respondent No.2-Insurance Company examined none, but marked Ex. B1-policy. The Tribunal having considered the issues in the light of the evidence let in by the parties and the material available on record, on the first issue held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the DCM by its driver. Insofar far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal considering the fact that the deceased was a meritorious student and was studying B.E. 4th year in Chaitanya Bharathi Insititue of Technology, fixed his income at Rs.8,000/- per month i.e. Rs.96,000/- per annum. After deducting one- third towards his personal expenses, worked out his contribution to the family at Rs.64,000/- per annum, and as the deceased was a bachelor, the Tribunal took the age of his mother, and considering her age, who was aged 42 years, applied the multiplier 11 and arrived at the future loss of earnings at Rs.7,04,000/-. Apart from the said amount, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses. Thus in all the Tribunal, by reason of the award under appeals, awarded Rs. 7,44,000/- as compensation to the claimants, making the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the same. The learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company confined his arguments to the quantum of compensation. He submitted that since the deceased at the time of his death in the accident was still a student studying B.E. 4th year, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.15,000/- per annum as provided under Schedule-II to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and it committed an error in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month, relying on the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Dr. B.D. Gupta v. R. Rani Manoranjitham[1]. Hence, he prayed that the compensation payable to the claimants be calculated taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- as fixed in Schedule-II to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the deceased at the time of the accident was studying B.E. 4th year, and as per the judgment of this Court in B. Ramulamma v. Venkatesh Bus Station[2], the income of a B.E. student studying 4th year can be fixed at Rs.12,000/- per month, and not Rs.15,000/- per annum fixed in Schedule-II to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as contended by the Insurance Company. He further submitted that the deceased was unmarried, and as the mother of the deceased was aged 42 years, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[3], the relevant multiplier applicable is 14, and the Tribunal committed an error in applying the multiplier 11 for the purpose of calculating the future loss of earning. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned counsel for respondent No.1-Insurance Company. There is no dispute that the deceased as the time of the accident was studying B.E. 4th year. He was a bright and meritorious student. Though the Insurance Company contended that since the deceased was a student and was not working, his notional income should be taken at Rs.15,000/- per annum as fixed in Schedule-II to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the fact remains, the learned counsel appearing on their behalf, did not dispute the fact in B. Ramulamma v. Venkatesh Bus Station, this Court had held that as far as the students, who completed or in final year or last semester of B.Tech, B.E., B.C.A., M.Tech., M.E., or M.B.A., or M.C.A. etc. courses who died in motor accidents or sustained permanent disability, their salaries also can be fixed on the basis of the salary of their classmates when they entered into jobs. In the said case, in the case, it was held that the income of a student, studying B.E. final year can be fixed at Rs.12,000/- per month. Since in the instant case also, the deceased was studying 4th year B.E., we deem it appropriate to take the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.1,44,000/- per annum. The deceased, admittedly, is a bachelor. As per the said judgment, 50% of his income should be deducted towards his personal expenses, and on such deduction, his contribution to the family (Rs.1,44,000/- minus Rs.72,000/-) would be Rs.72,000/-. The deceased, admittedly, is a bachelor. As the deceased is a bachelor, the age of his mother should be taken for adopting the relevant multiplier. The mother of the deceased, at the time of his death was aged 42 years, and as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the multiplier applicable is 14. If the annual loss of dependency is multiplied with the multiplier 14 (Rs.72,000/- x 14), the future loss of dependency would work out to Rs.10,08,000/-. Apart from the said amount, the claimants, as awarded by the Tribunal, are entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses, which they have spent for treatment of the deceased in Appolo Hospital, as evident is from Ex. A6. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the claimants are entitled to only Rs.5,000/- each under the heads “loss of love and affection” and “loss of estate”. Accordingly, the amounts awarded under the said heads stands reduced to Rs.5,000/- each. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs.10,28,000/-, which the Insurance Company and the owner of the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay. However, the claimants are entitled to interest on the enhanced amount at the rate of 6% per annum. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. No. 2580 of 2007 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed, while M.A.C.M.A. No. 2957 of 2007 filed by the claimants is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.7,44,000/- to Rs.10,28,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. _____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. Dated: 28th October, 2011 KSR [1] 2001 ACJ 2067 [2] 2009 (6) ALD 684 (DB) [3] (2009) 6 SCC 121