HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1893 of 2008 and 974 of 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: M.A.C.M.A.No.1893 of 2008 is directed against the order dated 04-10-2007 in O.P.No.2248 of 2005 on the file of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, wherein, the said application filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.8,73,500/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition. 2. M.A.C.M.A.No.974 of 2009 is filed by the claimants against the same order, dated 04-10-2007, seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. As both matters arose out of the same order, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents in both the matters. Perused the records. 5. Respondents 1 and 2 in M.A.C.M.A.No.1893 of 2008 are the parents of the deceased who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14-08-2005. According to the claimants on that day, the deceased was proceeding from Hayatnagar to Hyderabad in motorcycle bearing Regn. No.AP 24F 1927. By the time motorcycle reached the near Sushma Theatre Cross Roads, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad, the offending tipper bearing Regn. No.AP 9U 9265, driven in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed against the motor vehicle from behind, resulting the death of the deceased on the spot. It is further pleaded that the deceased was aged 20 years and was studying second year B.Tech and was also doing part time job and earning Rs.8,000/- per month by the date of accident. 6. The owner of the tipper remained ex parte. The insurer filed a counter opposing the claim petition denying the liability and the compensation. 7. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-17 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the insurer, but marked Ex.B-1, copy of insurance policy. 8. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tipper by its driver. The said finding is not seriously challenged in this appeal. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.8,73,500/-. Accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount with interest at 6% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer filed the appeal in C.M.A.No.1893 of 2008 and not satisfied with the award, the claimants filed C.M.A.No.974 of 2009 for enhancement. 9. The evidence on record establishes that the deceased was aged 20 years and was a student studying second year B.Tech course. Exs.A-11 and A-12 are the marks memos pertaining to the 1st year and 2nd year of the B.Tech course of the deceased, respectively. The claimants also examined P.W.3, who is the employer of the deceased, and filed salary certificate, Ex.A-13, to show that the deceased was doing a part time job as a Call Centre Executive till his death for M/s.Salient Informatics Private Limited and that he was drawing an average salary of Rs.7,500/-. 10. The learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the Tribunal having estimated the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month in view of the fact that the deceased was studying second year B.Tech and was having bright prospects, however, erred in deducting 2/3rd towards personal expenses and taking only 1/3rd i.e. Rs.5,000/- per month as the contribution of the deceased to the family. 11. The learned counsel for the insurer, on the other hand, would contend that the Tribunal has erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month without any basis and even if the salary Certificate, Ex.B-13, is to be taken into consideration, the deceased is earning only Rs.7,500/- per month and if 50% thereof is to be deducted towards personal expenses, the contribution for the deceased family would come to only Rs.3,750/- per month. 12. The evidence on record goes to show that the deceased was not only studying B.Tech second year but was also doing a part time job earning Rs.7,500/- per month. When the deceased was earning income by doing part time job even while he was pursuing B.Tech course, he can be reasonably expected to earn substantially after completing the B.Tech course. The future prospects of a person pursuing a professional course would certainly be bright and the same also has to be taken into consideration while estimating the income of the person. The deceased cannot therefore be considered to be a mere student having no income. In fact, the evidence on record shows that he has been a student and he was also doing a part time job earning some income. On completion of the professional course, he would certainly be earning much more than what he is already earning. 13. In that view of the matter, it is considered to be just and proper to estimate the income of the deceased at a slightly higher level than what is shown to be his actual income. As per Ex.A-13, salary certificate, which is duly proved by P.W.3, the deceased was earning Rs.7,500/- per month. In view of the fact that he was studying B.Tech second year, his income can therefore be reasonably estimated at Rs.10,000/- per month slightly higher than what he was actually shown to be earning. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], in case of a bachelor, 50% has to be deducted towages personal expenses. The contribution of the deceased to the family would therefore be taken as Rs.5,000/- per month which comes to Rs.60,000/- per annum. As the deceased was unmarried, the age of the mother is to be taken into consideration. The evidence on record shows that the second claimant, mother of the deceased, was aged 38 years. As per Sarla Varma’s case, the appropriate multiplier would be ‘15’. Applying the same, the loss of dependency works out to 60,000 X 15 = 9,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.76,500/- towards tuition fee expenses. As the said amount is incurred by way of an expenditure from out of the income of the deceased, the same cannot be treated as income and cannot therefore be granted. The claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma’s case. The claimants are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.9,10,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs ten thousand only) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 14. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.974 of 2009 filed by the claimants is allowed in part to the extent stated above. M.A.C.M.A.No.1893 of 2008 filed by the insurer is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ 28-12-2011 JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY kvr [1] AIR 2009 S.C. 3104