B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 31st January, 2020, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CMA No. 2518 of 2016.

3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under:

10,000/­. He submits that the High Court ought to have considered that S. Vasanthi ­ appellant No. 1, in an affidavit filed by her before the Tribunal, had stated that two classmates of her deceased son would go on to get employment with reputed companies in India on a monthly salary of approximately Rs. 40,000/­. The learned counsel submits that appellant No. 1 had, in fact, produced the salary certificates of the said two classmates with her affidavit. The learned counsel therefore submits that the deceased S. Sathiyanarayan, being an engineering graduate who was pursuing an MBA degree to further his career, would have attracted well­paying jobs had he been alive. The learned counsel therefore submits that the notional monthly income of the deceased S. Sathiyanarayan should be enhanced to Rs. 42842/­. The learned Counsel relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali and Another vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and Another1 , in support of his contention. 1 (2022) 1 SCC 317 4

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contend that both the Tribunal and the High Court were correct in assessing the notional income at the rate of Rs. 7,000/­ and Rs. 10,000/­ per month respectively, as the deceased S. Sathiyanarayan was not yet in employment and was merely a second­year student of his MBA course at that time.

10. A perusal of the affidavit filed by appellant No. 1 before the Tribunal would reveal that she had specifically stated that two of her son’s classmates were gainfully employed with well­known companies in India and were drawing monthly income of Rs. 39,869/­ and Rs. 44,588/­ respectively. It will be relevant to note that neither the Tribunal nor the High Court has adverted to these averments made by appellant No. 1.

11. It could thus be seen that the deceased S. Sathiyanarayan was twenty­three years of age at the time of the accident. He was a qualified engineering graduate and was pursuing an MBA degree at SRM University to further his professional capabilities. In view of the specific averments made in the affidavit as to the employment 5 prospects of the classmates of the deceased S. Sathiyanarayan and also his young age at the time of the accident, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal and the High Court have erred in not giving due weightage to the same. Had the deceased S. Sathiyanarayan not met with the unfortunate accident, he would have surely drawn a salary equivalent to that of his classmates or at least an amount near the said amount. Furthermore, the deceased was the only issue of the appellants. Since no parent should have to suffer through the death of their children, much less their only child, we are of the considered view that the monthly income as calculated by the High Court is inadequate.

12. Thus, we find that the compensation to be paid on account of the death of deceased S. Sathiyanarayan ought to be worked out by enhancing his monthly income to Rs. 30,000/­. However, we find that, since he was the only child of the appellants, in view of paragraphs (31) and (32) of the judgment in the case of Sarla Varma (Smt.) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another2 , as upheld by 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 6 a Constitution Bench decision in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others3 , 50% of the amount would have to be deducted as personal and living expenses. We further find that, insofar as the loss of consortium is concerned, an amount of Rs. 40,000/­ will have to be awarded. The compensation on account of the death of the deceased S. Sathiyanarayan is, therefore, being reassessed as under:

2. 40% to be added to 30,000/­ + 12,000/­ = Future Prospects Rs. 42,000/­ per month

3. 1/2 deducted towards 42,000/2 = Rs. 21,000/­ personal expenses

4. Yearly Income [(Sl. No.2­ 21,000 x 12 = Sl. No. 3) x 12] Rs. 2,52,000/­

5. Compensation after 2,52,000 x 18 = Multiplier Rs. 45,36,000/­

6. Conventional Head Rs. 30,000/­ (Funeral Expense and Loss of Estate)

7. Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/­ 3 (2017) 16 SCC 680 7

8. Transportation Rs. 5,000/­ Expenses  Total Compensation Rs. 46,11,000/­ Awarded (5+6+7+8)  Enhanced amount of 46,11,000­7,48,052 = Compensation from Rs. 38,62,948/­ MACT (Rs. 7,48,052/­)  Enhanced amount of 46,11,000 – 16,27,000 = Compensation from HC Rs. 29,84,000/­ (Rs. 16,27,000/­)

13. The enhanced compensation of Rs. 29,84,000/­ along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum shall be paid to the appellants within a period of three months from the date of this judgment.

14. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

…..….......................J. [B.R. GAVAI] .…….......................J. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR] NEW DELHI;

OCTOBER 11, 2022.