THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2259 of 2009 & 260 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two appeals arise out of the order, dated 07.01.2008, in O.P.No.2218 of 2005 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said claim application filed by the claimants was allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.6,40,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of the petition. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. M.A.C.M.A.No.260 of 2011 is filed by the insurer, questioning the quantum of compensation awarded and M.A.C.M.A.No.2259 of 2009 is filed seeking enhancement. 4. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.TAK-8466 belonging to the 1st respondent- owner and insured with the 2nd respondent-insurer, is not seriously disputed. It is also not disputed that the deceased was aged 17 years, unmarried and was studying B.Pharmacy. Claimants 1 and 2 are the parents and claimants 3 and 4 are the sisters of the deceased. According to the claimants, the deceased was giving private tuitions to the students of IX and X classes and was earning Rs.6000/- per month besides studying B.Pharmacy. In the absence of any evidence in proof of the said income, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.5000/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier ‘16’ suitable to the age of the mother, who was aged 40 years, arrived at loss of dependency in a sum of Rs.6,40,000/-, and by adding Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses, awarded total compensation of Rs.6,42,000/-. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants would contend that having regard to the fact that the deceased was studying B.Pharmacy, the future prospects of the deceased in securing a decent job and earning decent income cannot be lost sight of and the amount of Rs.5000/- per month taken by the Tribunal into consideration is meagre. In that connection, he relied upon a decision of this Court in B.RAMULAMMA AND OTHERS v. M/S VENKATESH BUS UNION, REP. BY A.M. VELU MUDALIYAR, BANGALORE AND ANOTHER[1], wherein the Division Bench has observed that the minimum income of B.E graduate can be fixed at Rs.12,000/- per month. 6. Though the prospects of a student of B.Pharmacy cannot be taken at par with those of a B.E.graduate in terms of securing employment and the income, having regard to the fact that the deceased was also pursuing a professional course, having reasonable prospects, it is considered that his income can be notionally estimated at Rs.6000/- per month, especially, in the light of the fact that even a daily wage earner is getting average of Rs.100/- per day which comes to Rs.3000/- per month by doing hard labour. As the deceased has left behind four legal heirs, 1/4th of the income has to be taken towards personal expenses in view of the decision of the apex Court in SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER [2]. Therefore, the monthly contribution comes to Rs.4500/- per month and Rs.54,000/- per annum. 7. As per the above decision of the apex Court, the appropriate multiplier suitable to the age of the mother of the deceased, who is stated to be 40 years, is ‘15’. Applying the same, the loss of dependency would work out to Rs.8,10,000/- ( Rs.54,000/- X 15). Claimants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.5000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus the claimants would be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.8,20,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the petition. The impugned award is modified. 8. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.2259 of 2009, filed by the claimants, is allowed in part to the extent stated above and M.A.C.M.A.No.260 of 2011, filed by the insurer, is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 15th November, 2011 Tsy [1] 2009 (6) ALT 784 (D.B) [2] (2009) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 121