Judgment Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. 1. The appellants are the unfortunate parents who suffered an irreparable loss in the death of their young son Dr. Vikrant Gupta. He was 23 years old and had just graduated in Medicine and Surgery. He was undergoing internship. He met his end in a lorry accident. The death was instantaneous. The appellants filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The tribunal has assessed and awarded a total amount of Rs.2,70,000. The appellants complain that compensation is too meagre. Hence this appeal. 2. The facts may be briefly noticed. On the night intervening 21/22.4.1995, vikrant Gupta was travelling to Pondi-cherry in the lorry No. TCG 2400. Near chengalpattu, the lorry hit a stationary truck No. PY-01-0477 which was parked on the wrong side of the road without any light or indication. Vikrant Gupta sustained multiple injuries and died. His postmortem was performed at the Medical college, Chengalpattu. An FIR Exh. P-5 was also recorded. 3. The father of the deceased was at chandigarh. He had retired as Professor and Head of the Department of Radiotherapy, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, in the year 1994. On 22.4.1995, he was to leave for Mangolia. His ticket was already booked. However, on receipt of the telegram, he had flown to Madras and then reached Chengalpattu. He got the body embalmed. It was carried to Delhi by air and then to Chandigarh in an ambulance. The last rites were performed at Chandigarh. 4. The deceased had a brilliant academic record. He had joined the MBBS course at the Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and research, Pondicherry in July, 1990. This admission was granted to him as a result of the selection conducted by the Central board of Secondary Education. He had completed the four and a half years course and was doing internship from January, 1995. During the period of internship, he was being paid a stipend of Rs.2,000 per month. The accident ended a promising career. 5. The deceased had other interests as well. He had passed the Grade V examination in Classical Guitar from the London school of Music. He had ambitious plans of performing concerts apart from following the medical profession. 6. Appellants claim that the deceased had the potential of earning a minimum of rs.50,000 per month. The accident ended a promising career. 5. The deceased had other interests as well. He had passed the Grade V examination in Classical Guitar from the London school of Music. He had ambitious plans of performing concerts apart from following the medical profession. 6. Appellants claim that the deceased had the potential of earning a minimum of rs.50,000 per month. On this basis, a compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000 along with interest at 18 per cent was claimed. 7. In the petition, the owners and drivers of the two vehicles and the insurers, viz. , oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and United india Insurance Co. Ltd. were impleaded as parties. The two companies appeared. Others did not. Resultantly, respondent nos.1 to 4 and 7 were proceeded against ex parte. 8. In the written statement filed by oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , it was averred that no cause of action had accrued. The respondent No.1 was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of the alleged accident. She had no insurable interest and that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. On merits, the basic plea was that the claimants be put to proof, similar was the reply filed on behalf of United India insurance Co. Ltd. , respondent No.6. 9. On the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed the following three issues: (1) Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent Nos.2 and 4? opp (2) If issue No.1 is proved to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled and from whom? OPP (3) Relief. On issue No.1, the Tribunal found that the accident had occurred "due to rash and negligent acts of respondent Nos.2 and 4". On the quantum of compensation, the tribunal took the view that after completion of the internship, the salary of the deceased could be Rs.3,000, /3rd was deducted on account of personal expenses. Thus, taking the contribution at Rs.2,000 per month, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 10 and assessed the compensation of Rs.2,40,000. It allowed another amount of Rs.20,000 on account of transportation charges and Rs.10,000 for cremation. Thus, a total compensation of Rs.2,70,000 was assessed and awarded. 10. Mr. Ashok Sharma, counsel for the appellants contends that the compensation as assessed by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate and that a much higher compensation ought to have been awarded. It allowed another amount of Rs.20,000 on account of transportation charges and Rs.10,000 for cremation. Thus, a total compensation of Rs.2,70,000 was assessed and awarded. 10. Mr. Ashok Sharma, counsel for the appellants contends that the compensation as assessed by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate and that a much higher compensation ought to have been awarded. On the other hand, Mr. Suveer Dewan and Mrs. Gopal Mittal, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 the insurers, have (though half-heartedly) contended that the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is adequate. 11. The short question that arises for consideration is: Has the Tribunal awarded a just and fair compensation to the claimants? 12. Admittedly, the deceased had passed his MBBS examination. The certificate, exh. P-l clearly shows that he was doing his internship. It is also evident that he was "a very good student and (had) passed all the examinations in the first appearance itself. Even his past was good. He had got admission to the Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry, as a result of the All India competition conducted by the central Board of Secondary Education. Still further, he had also qualified the grade V examination from the London school of Music. 13. Dr. B. D. Gupta, the father of the deceased appeared as PW 1. He stated that his son had "ambitious plans of performing concerts apart from devoting his time in the medical profession". He also stated that the deceased was to "further pursue his MD/ms course and was to rise high in life. . . " In cross-examination, the only suggestion made to the witness was that his son was not MBBS. Otherwise, nothing was suggested which may reflect adversely on the deceased. 14. It is evident that the deceased had a consistently good academic record. His selection and admission to the medical course is symbolic of his good academic attainments. Even if the testimony of the dad is deemed to be tainted with some degree of interest (though there is nothing to suggest that), we have the unequivocal opinion of the Dean of the Institute. He has given a picture of the promise and the potential. The certificate is Exh. Even if the testimony of the dad is deemed to be tainted with some degree of interest (though there is nothing to suggest that), we have the unequivocal opinion of the Dean of the Institute. He has given a picture of the promise and the potential. The certificate is Exh. P-l. It shows that the deceased had not only passed all the examinations in the first attempt but also that "if he were to survive, there was every probability that he could have secured admission for higher course of study (like M. D. , M. S. , etc.) and qualified to have a good income as a specialist medical practitioner". This assessment by the dean of the Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and research, Pondicherry bears clear testimony to the potential of the deceased. Apparently, he had a good past and was likely to have a bright future. He had the potential of being a source of comfort to his parents and an asset to the society. 15. It is true that in April, 1995, the deceased was undergoing internship. He was getting a stipend of Rs.2,000. However, on graduation he could have easily hoped to get a good Government job or to set up private practice. He could have also done post-graduation. In any of these situations, his income would not have been restricted to Rs.3,000 per month as assessed by the Tribunal. In fact, it is the admitted position that even in the year 1995-96, junior Residents who joined Post Graduate Institutes of Medical Education for higher studies were paid in the region of rs.12,000 per month or more. Those who were selected for appointment to the State medical Services, were paid even more. There were prospects of career advancement. On this basis, it appears that it would be unfair to fix the income of the deceased at anything less than Rs.12,000 per month. It could have been even more if he were to take up a job with the Government or to set up private practice. If 1/3rd of this amount is excluded towards the personal expenses of the deceased, he could have easily spared Rs.8,000 per month for his parents. 16. The Tribunal has noticed the fact that the deceased was 23 years old at the time of accident. If 1/3rd of this amount is excluded towards the personal expenses of the deceased, he could have easily spared Rs.8,000 per month for his parents. 16. The Tribunal has noticed the fact that the deceased was 23 years old at the time of accident. Still, it has applied a multiplier of 10 on the hypothesis that the deceased could have got married after 10 years. Mr. Ashok Sharma contends that the Tribunal has erred in applying a multiplier of 10. He submits that a multiplier of 18 should be applied. 17. The cardinal principle that courts follow is that the damages have to be minimised. Yet, we cannot lose sight of the ground realities. It is indisputable that life expectancy is increasing with years. Still further, even if the deceased had got married, he would have in the normal course of events continued to look after his parents and provide for them. At the lowest, he would have also been a source of help and solace to them. It is also the admitted position that at the time of the accident, the age of the appellant No.1 was about 60 years while that of appellant No.2 was less than 58 years. There is not even a suggestion that the appellants are not fit and healthy. Taking all these factors into consideration, we think it appropriate to apply a multiplier of 12. 18. In view of the above, it is held that the appellants suffered a monetary loss of rs.96,000 per year, with a multiplier of 12, the figure comes to Rs.11,52,000. Still further, the appellant No.1 in his statement as PW 1 has categorically asserted that he had spent an amount of Rs.80,000 on transportation and Rs.40,000 on funeral and cremation, etc. This part of the statement was not challenged in cross-examination. Normally, even this amount would have been payable to the appellants. However, we think that a total compensation of Rs.45,000 on this account shall be just and reasonable. 19. No other point has been raised. 20. Whatever the amount of compensation that we might assess and award, the loss that the appellants have suffered is irreparable. Nothing but time can heal the wound. The scar shall remain till the last day of their lives. 19. No other point has been raised. 20. Whatever the amount of compensation that we might assess and award, the loss that the appellants have suffered is irreparable. Nothing but time can heal the wound. The scar shall remain till the last day of their lives. The appellants are held entitled to an amount of Rs.11,97,000 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the filing the claim petition as awarded by the Tribunal. Since both the vehicles have been held to be equally liable by the Tribunal and that finding has not been challenged, the liability of respondent Nos.5 and 6 would be joint and several. The appellants shall be entitled to their costs. Appeal allowed.