THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA and THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A.C.M.A.No.2542 of 2005 JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble Mr Justice N.V.Ramana) This MACMA is directed against the award, dated 07.07.2005, passed by the learned I Additional District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Mahabubnagar (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.246 of 2001. The appellants are the claimants. They filed the O.P., under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of their son, Setty Audithya, in a motor accident that occurred on 06.03.2001 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing Registration No.AP-22-U-268. The said auto is owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. The first respondent remained ex-parte. The second respondent-Insurance Company filed counter denying the allegations regarding the accident and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the appellants, the first appellant himself was examined as PW.1 and also examined PW.2, apart from marking Exs.A1 to A21. On behalf of the second respondent-Insurance Company, none were examined, but Ex.B1- Certificate of Insurance was marked. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the material placed on record, while holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto, resulting in the death of the deceased, granted a sum of Rs.4,85,000/- as compensation under various heads. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the appellants-claimants filed this MACMA. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is two- fold. Firstly, he contended that the deceased was studying Engineering III Year and as such, the Tribunal ought to have taken at least Rs.7,000/- p.m., towards earning capacity of the deceased. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of B.Ramulamma v. Venkatesh Bus Union, Lingarajapuram, Bangalore and another[1]. Secondly, he contended that the Tribunal having recorded a finding that the appellants produced evidence that they had spent more than Rs.2,80,000/-, committed an error in awarding only Rs.1,60,000/- under the head medical expenses. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-Insurance Company contended that as against the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in B.Ramulamma (1 supra), SLP is preferred by the Insurance Company, and as such, the ratio laid down therein, should not be taken into consideration, while determining the income of the deceased. He further contended that as the deceased was studying B.Tech. III year, the family back-ground and income of his parents have to be taken into consideration, while awarding compensation. In support of his argument that when parents are the claimants, the age of the deceased is not relevant and it is the age of the claimants which would determine the multiplier to be adopted, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Coproration V. Lalnipuii[2]. In support of his argument that application of relevant multiplier depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Jyothi Kaul v. State of Madhya Pradesh[3]. Relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sarala Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[4], the learned counsel contended that while arriving at the contribution of the deceased to the family, 50% of his earnings should be deducted towards his personal expenses. He submitted that while determining the quantum of compensation, no decision can be taken to be of binding precedent and that each case has to be dealt with on its own facts, and in support of this argument, he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood[5]. In support of his argument that dependency has to be worked out on the basis of the earnings of the deceased at the time of accident, relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidyadhar Dutta and others[6]. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd., v. Satender and others[7], to contend that unless the parents establish that they had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child had lived, compensation cannot be awarded. He submitted that since the deceased at the time of his death was studying and was not earning, his income should have been assessed by the Tribunal on the basis of notional income of a non-earning person as fixed in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, and in support of this argument, he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ponnumany alias Krishnan and another v. V.A. Mohanan and others[8]. In reply, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that if the income of parents is taken into consideration, it would lead to serious anomalies and therefore, the notional income of the deceased should be taken as criteria for fixing his future earnings. It is further submitted that while determining the relevant multiplier, the age of parents is to be taken into consideration. Relying upon the judgment in the case of B.Ramulamma (1 supra), the learned counsel submitted that the minimum income of the deceased should be taken as Rs.12,000/- per month, which is reasonable. We have heard the learned counsel on either side at length and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the deceased was studying B.Tech., III year at the time of accident. The Tribunal, considering the future prospects of the deceased, has taken the earnings of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month, and deducted one-third of the said amount towards his personal expenses, and taking into consideration the age of the father of the deceased, applied multiplier 15 and arrived at the loss of future income of the deceased at Rs.3,00,000/-. A Division Bench of this Court B.Ramulamma (1 supra), considered the question as to what salary can be fixed for students who completed or are studying final year or last semester of B.Tech., B.E., M.Tech., M.E. or M.B.A., M.C.A., etc. and answered the same as follow: “…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., M.C.A., etc., courses and 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. Some percentage say e.g. 10% per year can be deducted in respect of the students studying III year or II year as the case may be. In view of the present salaries, being earned by the Computer Engineers, there cannot be any doubt as to say that the deceased would have minimum Rs.12.000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. It has to be seen that now-a-days IVth class employees are also getting minimum Rs.7,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month depending upon their service. The Junior Assistants are also getting Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, considering the normal scales being earned by the Government employees and also the minimum wage scales fixed to the technical persons, we are of the view that the minimum salary of a technical person, who is holding a bachelor degree in computers or electronics or mechanical, can be taken as Rs.12,000/- per month. Therefore, the income of the graduates in engineering i.e., B.Tech., cannot be fixed less than Rs.12,000/- per month, otherwise it amounts to neglecting the ground of reality... .” From the above, it is clear that students, who completed or are in final year or last semester of B.Tech., B.E., B.C.A., M.Tech., M.E. or M.B.A., M.C.A., etc., courses and who died in motor accidents or sustained permanent disability, their salaries was fixed at Rs.12,000/- when they entered into jobs, and reduced the same by 10% for each year in respect of the students studying III year or II year as the case may be. Since the salary of a B.Tech., graduate can be fixed at Rs.12,000/- and having regard to the fact that the deceased at the time of his death in the accident was studying B.Tech., III year, by deducting 10%, his salary can be fixed at Rs.10,800/-. Though the learned counsel for the second respondent-Insurance Company has contended that SLP has been preferred against the judgment in Ramulamma, the fact remains that so far, no orders are passed in the said SLP. That being so, we deem it appropriate to fix the salary of the deceased at Rs.10,800/-. However, as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarala Varma, 50% of the income should be deducted towards personal and living expenses, and if the said 50% is deducted from the salary of the deceased, the net loss of income to the claimants due to the death of the deceased would come to Rs.5,400/- p.m., which comes to Rs.64,800/- per annum. The learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent relying on Maharastra State Road Transport Corporation (2 supra) contended that for the purpose of determining the multiplier, the age of the mother should only be adopted, but in the said case, the Supreme Court has categorically held that where the parents are the claimants, age of the deceased is not relevant and the age of the claimants would only determine the multiplier and took the age of the mother into consideration as she was the only claimant in that case. Hence, there is no illegality committed by the Tribunal in taking into consideration the age of the father of the deceased and adopting multiplier of 15. If the loss of income due to the death of the deceased to the claimants which is determined at Rs.64,800/- is multiplied by the multiplier 15, the compensation would work out to Rs.9,72,000/-. Insofar as the compensation awarded towards the medial expenses is concerned, it is to be noted that immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to the Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar by the appellants and after taking first-aid, the deceased was shifted to Udaya Clinic, Hyderabad for expert treatment and on the next day, he was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad for further treatment, where his right leg was completely amputated up to the thigh. But, however, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 14.03.2001 while undergoing treatment at Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad. The appellants filed medical records and bills in this regard. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, though the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the appellants produced evidence showing that they have spent more than Rs.2,80,000/-, it has granted only Rs.1,60,000/-,which is not correct. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants are entitled to Rs.2,80,000/- under the head Medical Expenses. In the result, the MACMA is allowed partly enhancing compensation, under the head of loss of future income of the deceased from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.9,72,000/-, and from Rs.1,60,000/- to Rs.2,80,000/-, under the head of Medical Expenses. Apart from that, the claimants are also entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.5,000/- towards visitors and attendant charges and Rs.2,500/- towards funeral charges, as awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, in all, the claimants will be entitled to Rs.12,74,500/-. So far as interest is concerned, the claimants are entitled to 9% per annum on the amount awarded by the Tribunal, but so far as enhanced amount is concerned, it shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ N.V. Ramana, J _________________ Noushad Ali, J Date:26.03.2010 VGB [1] 2009 (6) ALD 684 (DB) [2] 2006(2) ACJ 1059 [3] 2000 ACJ 1368 [4] (2009) 6 SCC 121 [5] 2001 ACJ 1719 [6] 2006 ACJ 1058 [7] 2007(1) ALD 1 (SC) [8] 2008 (2) ACJ 1338