Judgment :- R. Banumathi, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order of M.C.O.P.No.213 of 2001 dated 30.10.2003 thereby Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.13,21,040/-to the Claimants who are parents of the deceased Manohar who died in a road traffic accident on 010. 2000. .2. Brief facts are that on 010. 2000, deceased Manohar was travelling in the bus bearing registration No.TN-27 V 3949 [National Transport Bus] from Thathagapatty to Sankari. When bus was proceeding near Thalaiyur Pirivu, the driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and all of a sudden the bus collided over another bus which came in the opposite direction. Due to the impact, the passengers including Manohar who were sitting in front portion of the bus sustained head injuries and injuries all over the body. Manohar was immediately taken to Sri Gokulam Hospital, Salem where he was treated in Intensive Care Unit from 010. 2000 to 110. 2000. Inspite of best treatment, Manohar succumbed to injuries on 110. 2000. At the time of his death, Manohar was aged 21 years. He has passed B.E. on Electrical and Electronics Engineering and he was also a Honours Diploma Holder of National Institute of Information Technology [NIIT] in Network Centred Computing. Regarding the accident, criminal case was registered in Crime No.1034/2000 of Magudanchavadi Police Station. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver, Claimants who are parents of deceased Manohar filed Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. 3. Appellant-Insurance Company resisted the Claim Petition denying negligence as well as quantum of compensation claimed by the Claimants. 4. Beforethe Tribunal, 2nd Claimant-Vijayalakshmi was examined as PW1. One Gnanasivamurthy, who was working as Manager in Networks India (P) Limited was examined as PW2. Exs.P1 to P38 were marked on the side of Claimants. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the Respondents. 5. Finding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, Tribunal held that owner of the bus and insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Taking into future prospects of deceased Manohar, Tribunal had taken the monthly income at Rs.7500/-. 5. Finding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, Tribunal held that owner of the bus and insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Taking into future prospects of deceased Manohar, Tribunal had taken the monthly income at Rs.7500/-. Applying the ratio of 1996 ACJ 831 [U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Trilok Chandra and others], Tribunal has deducted two units for personal expenses and deducted Rs.2750/- and calculated the "loss of dependency" at Rs.4750/-per month and pecuniary loss at Rs.57,000/- per annum. Adopting multiplier "17", Tribunal calculated the "loss of dependency" at Rs.9,69,000/-. Tribunal also awarded Rs.5000/- for "funeral expenses", Rs.1000/- for "transport charges" and Rs.1,00,905/- for "medical expenses", totalling Rs.13,21,040/- was awarded and the compensation was ordered to be equally apportioned amongst the Claimants. 6. It is not necessary for us to narrate entire facts in detail as to how the accident occurred and who was negligent and who is liable to pay compensation and also coverage of Policy. It is for the reason that these aspects are recorded infavour of Claimants and consequently, none of the findings are under challenge, only quantum is under dispute in this appeal. 7. Deceased Manohar was an Engineering graduate in Electricals & Electronics Engineering. He was a Honours Diploma Holder in National Institute of Information Technology [NIIT]. He was also studying in Loyola College two years course in Master of Marketing Management. In her evidence, PW1 has stated that her son Manohar was meritorious student and even one month prior to the accident he had attended an interview in Army and also in the Electronic Division in Indian Airlines Limited. PW1 has further stated that her son was highly qualified and meritorious. Manohar was employed as "Faculty" in Netwise India Private Limited, T.Nagar Branch. As is seen from Ex.P24-salary certificate, Manohar was getting salary of Rs.3500/-plus perks. As is seen from Ex.P29, Manohar has passed "Madhyama" Examination in August 1994 and has also obtained certificate of Proficiency in English conducted by the Director, Faculty of Languages. As is seen from Exs.P25, P26 and P27(series), it is seen that Manohar was meritorious and was also taking keen interest in other areas. As pointed out earlier, he has qualified himself in both languages in English and Hindi. 8. As is seen from Exs.P25, P26 and P27(series), it is seen that Manohar was meritorious and was also taking keen interest in other areas. As pointed out earlier, he has qualified himself in both languages in English and Hindi. 8. Even though, in Ex.P24 salary certificate issued by Netwise India Private Limited it has been stated that Manohar was getting monthly salary of Rs.3500/-, Tribunal has taken the monthly income at Rs.7500/-. Mr.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for Appellant contended that when the deceased was actually earning only Rs.3500/- per month, the future prospects cannot be increased to such an extent of more than doubling the actual income. It was further contended that the amount of Rs.7500/- taken by the Tribunal is on the higher side. 9. It is fairly well settled that while awarding compensation, the Tribunal/Courts will have to keep in view the future prospects like future promotion, revision of pay etc., and the Court should bear them in mind while assessing the future loss of income. In K.K.Janardhanam Vs. Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Limited (2008 ACJ 875) and in Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and another (2009 AIR SCW 6999), Courts have held that the future prospects have to be taken into consideration having regard to the salaries and other allowances. 10. Deceased Manohar who was a meritorious and highly qualified Engineering graduate has also obtained Honours Diploma of National Institute of Information Technology. From Ex.P23, it is seen that the over all performance in Network – Centered Computing Curriculum was also fair. As is seen from Ex.P31, Manohar was directed to appear for an interview by the Board of Apprenticeship Training [Southern Region], Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Secondary Education and Higher Education, Government of India, Chennai-113. From Ex.P32 [25.07.2000], it is seen that deceased Manohar was called for an interview for the post of Officer by the Service Selection Board of Indian Army. As pointed out earlier, Manohar was also obtained proficiency certificates in English and Hindi. Deceased Manohar being an Engineering graduate and also highly qualified in NIIT and other languages was called to appear for interviews. Because of his merit and qualification, over the years Manohar would have joined in Government services or might have secured a good job with good emoluments. Deceased Manohar being an Engineering graduate and also highly qualified in NIIT and other languages was called to appear for interviews. Because of his merit and qualification, over the years Manohar would have joined in Government services or might have secured a good job with good emoluments. Having regard to the qualification of the deceased Manohar and number of interviews he was attending, Tribunal has rightly taken into account the future prospects and taken the monthly income at Rs.7500/-. It cannot be said that the monthly income of Rs.7500/- taken by the Tribunal is exorbitant or on the higher side. 11. At the time of accident, deceased Manohar was aged 21 years. After taking the monthly income at Rs.7500/- and applying the ratio of 1996 ACJ 831 [U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Trilok Chandra and others], Tribunal has adopted unit method for arriving at the contribution of the deceased to the family. As per the decision 1996 (4) SCC 362 [UP State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra], two units is allotted to each adult and one unit is allotted to each minor and total number of units are determined and then the income is divided by the total number of units. The quotient is multiplied by two to arrive at the Personal Living Expenses of the deceased. Applying the ratio of Trilok Chandras case, the Tribunal has taken six units and taken two units at Rs.2500/- and other expenses at Rs.250/-and totalling into Rs.2750/- for personal expenses and taken the pecuniary loss to the family at Rs.4750/-. .12. As held in 2003 ACJ 1775 [Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Mahadeva Shetty and another], Courts have duty to award just compensation. What is just and reasonable compensation cannot be adopted by any mathematical procession. It has to be equitable, fair and reasonable 13. Even though, in Trilok Chandras case, the Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines for adopting unit method for arriving at the contribution of the deceased to the family, in the subsequent decisions, the Supreme Court has taken consistent view in giving one-third deduction for personal expenses and living expenses. In a number of decisions, the Supreme Court has taken consistent view that one-third deduction to be made for personal expenses. In a number of decisions, the Supreme Court has taken consistent view that one-third deduction to be made for personal expenses. In 2004 (2) SCC 473 [Fakeerappa v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory] while considering the appropriateness of 50% deduction towards Personal and Living Expenses of the deceased, the Supreme Court has held that what would be the percentage of deduction for personal expenses cannot be governed by any rigid rule or formula of universal application and it would depend upon circumstances of each case. In the said decision, the deceased was a bachelor and the Court has restricted the deduction towards personal and living expenses to one-third of the income. In (2008) 4 SCC 259 [Bilkish v. United India Insurance Company Limited], the Supreme Court has taken the view that deceased would have spent one-third towards personal expenses and the contribution two-third of his income to his family. Ofcourse, deduction of one-third towards personal expenses is the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court. If we deduct one-third for personal expenses, the contribution to the family would be Rs.5000/- per month. We are of the considered view that it would be appropriate to take Rs.5000/-per month as pecuniary loss to the family. 14. Coming to the choice of multiplier, at the time of accident, deceased Manohar was aged 21 years. Taking into consideration of the age of the deceased, Tribunal has adopted multiplier "17". In (2008) 2 SCC 667 [Ramesh Singh and another v. Satbir Singh and another] and other decisions, the Supreme Court has held that choice of multiplier would depend upon age of the deceased or age of the Claimant which ever is higher. In this case, parents are the Claimants. At the time of filing of Petition, 2nd Claimant-mother was aged 41 years and 1st Claimant-father was aged 47 years. Taking the age of the mother, the proper multiplier to be applied is "15". Adopting multiplier "15", the loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.9,00,000/- [Rs.5000/- x 12 x 15 = Rs.9,00,000/-]. 15. In so far as, conventional damages Tribunal has awarded Rs.5000/-for funeral expenses, Rs.1000/- for transport expenses. Manohar was taken treatment in Sri Gokulam Hospital, Salem under Intensive Care Unit from 010. 2000 to 110. 2000. As per Exs.P10, P12 and P13, Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,905/- for medical expenses and the same are maintained. 15. In so far as, conventional damages Tribunal has awarded Rs.5000/-for funeral expenses, Rs.1000/- for transport expenses. Manohar was taken treatment in Sri Gokulam Hospital, Salem under Intensive Care Unit from 010. 2000 to 110. 2000. As per Exs.P10, P12 and P13, Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,905/- for medical expenses and the same are maintained. Claimants are parents who lost their only son who was qualified and also meritorious and thriving to come up life. In such circumstances, Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/-for loss of love and affection and the same is confirmed. Another sum of Rs.10,000/-is awarded for "loss of estate". Thus the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.12,16,905/-as under:- Loss of dependency : Rs. 9,00,000.00 [Rs.5000 x 12 x 15] Funeral expenses : Rs. 5,000.00 Transport charges : Rs. 1,000.00 Loss of love and affection : Rs. 2,00,000.00 Loss of estate : Rs. 10,000.00 Medical bills : Rs. 1,00,905.00 Total : Rs.12,16,905.00 The modified compensation of Rs.12,16,905/-has to be apportioned among the Claimants equally. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Though by the consistent view, the Supreme Court has ordered payment of interest at 7.5% p.a. In this case, having regard to the fact that the deceased was highly qualified and who lost his life at the young age and considering the lesser amount as income of the deceased, we are not inclined to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal and 9% p.a. interest awarded by the Tribunal is maintained. 16. Inthe result, the compensation of Rs.13,21,040/-awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.12,16,905/- payable with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of Petition till the date of deposit and the Appeal is partly allowed. It was stated before us Appellant-Insurance Company has already deposited the entire compensation amount along with interest awarded by the Tribunal. Out of which, Claimants 1 and 2 have withdrawn 50% each together with interest accrued thereon. Claimants 1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw the balance modified compensation amount apportioned to each one of them immediately after the receipt of copy of this Judgment. Appellant-Insurance company is permitted to withdraw the excess amount along with interest accrued thereon already deposited. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.19,170/-. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in these Appeals.