ORDER 1. This is an appeal, preferred by the insurer against the Award passed in M.V. Claim Case no. 69 of 2009 by District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, Bhagalpur on 08th March, 2011 awarding a sum of Rs. 16,70,500/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum against death of their son Rajesh Ranjan, at the age of 23 years, taking place in a Motor Accident on 01.04.2009 due to involvement of a truck, bearing Registration no.JH-11C 4690. 2. The deceased was, at the relevant time, a student of third year Marine Engineering having good academic career and the Claim Tribunal, arriving at the conclusion that just after completing studies for another year he could have get placement and started getting salary not less than Rs.25,000/- per month but on the basis of calculating compensation it was taken as Rs.20,000/- per month and by using the multiplier 11 at the age of mother of the deceased and deducting 1/3rd as personal expenditure awarded the amount which is challenged by the appellant here. 3. The appeal involves a limited question about the amount of deduction for personal expenditure, selection of multiplier and income of the deceased since it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that undisputedly the deceased was a student and only after completing his studies he could have started earning but just on exaggerating guess work such amount has been awarded without any provision of law and even deduction as personal expenditure was made as 1/3rd instead of 1/2nd. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that court below has rightly arrived at the conclusion of income of the deceased which cannot be equated with income of skilled or unskilled labourer and instead of applying multiplier 18 it has wrongly been applied as 11 in the case of mother. 4. It is undisputed that deceased was a bachelor, claimants are none else than his parents, so the mother of the deceased under law is the only person depending upon the deceased and 50% of the income of the deceased whatever it may be is to be deducted as his personal expenditure instead of 1/3rd deducted by the Tribunal. 4. It is undisputed that deceased was a bachelor, claimants are none else than his parents, so the mother of the deceased under law is the only person depending upon the deceased and 50% of the income of the deceased whatever it may be is to be deducted as his personal expenditure instead of 1/3rd deducted by the Tribunal. To support this finding, apart from others, there is decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 5. As regards to selection of multiplier, Claim Tribunal has chosen age of the mother but on this point also now there is clear verdict of the Apex Court in a case of Amrit Bhanu Shali & Others vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd & Others, (2012) 11 SCC 738 and in paragraph 17 of the judgment it is clearly held: “The selection of the multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of dependent. There may be a number of dependants of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation.” 6. Now the most relevant and crucial question is what should be the income of the deceased who was admittedly had no earning at the time of his death rather he was a student of 3rd year of Marine Engineering having good academic record expecting due placement with handsome salary and Claim Tribunal, on considering all such aspects, assumed his monthly salary as Rs.20,000/- per month. 7. In Schedule-II of Motor Vehicles Act there is a chart appended for calculation or no income and on considering such findings of discrepancies the Apex Court has prepared another chart but for the purposes of selection of multiplier in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra). Prior to that in the case of Laxmi Devi and Others vs. Md. Tabbar & Others, (2008) 12 SCC 165 , notional income for working persons has been approved at the rate of Rs.36,000/- per annum instead of the sum as Rs.15,000/- per annum, since it is the amount fixed for the persons having undisputedly no income since having no job or self employment. 8. There are two categories of the persons on whose income amount of compensation is to be assessed. 8. There are two categories of the persons on whose income amount of compensation is to be assessed. In one category there are two types of person; one employed under any Institution or individual having earning salary known to all and other persons are under self employment. In case of death of the salaried people there appears less difficulty to assess the compensation which is to be based on their actual incomes, details are easily available and in case of self employed some difficult situation comes in the claimants are not in a position to produce details of their income or the deceased just to avoid some applicable taxes etc. did not have any Permanent Account Number under the Income Tax Act or due registration of their enterprises with the Authorities and have no proper account or furnishing income Tax return etc. In such a case on proof of their working under self employment principle of notional income is to applied with. 9. In other category the deceased having no income either due to their age or due to physical as acadenuc capability as skill etc. In such a case if the deceased is minor, normally the principle of fixed compensation has been made applicable. But difficulty arises in case of persons like in the instant case where the deceased is not a minor but, at the same time, having no earning rather on the basis of good academic record and prospect expecting good placement / employment and handsome income. In such a case also principle of fixed compensation needs to be applied with. As regards to pecuniary loss amount of compensation may vary from case to case based on the facts and circumstances but the limit should be just and reasonable. 10. The Aapex Court in the case of R.K. Malik & Another vs. Kiran Paul and Others, 2009 ACJ (3) 1924 (SC) in paragraph 15 of the judgment has noticed the problem and referring the case between Taff Vale Rly Co. vs. Jenkins, (1911-13) All England Reporter 160 has clearly held: “Under no stretch of imagination it can be said that the parents, who are appellants herein, have not suffered any pecuniary loss. In fact, loss of dependency by its very nature is awarded for prospective or future loss.” 11. vs. Jenkins, (1911-13) All England Reporter 160 has clearly held: “Under no stretch of imagination it can be said that the parents, who are appellants herein, have not suffered any pecuniary loss. In fact, loss of dependency by its very nature is awarded for prospective or future loss.” 11. In paragraph 16 of the judgment (supra) the Apex Court has clearly held that the second schedule of the Act with only exception is some of the exceptional cases such as Abati Bezbaruah vs. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India, (2003) 3 SCC 148 , United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan, (2002) 6 SCC 281 and UP State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chandra, (1966) 4 SCC 362. 12. Undisputedly deceased, in the instant case, though not minor but a student aged about 23 years having no earning, hence his income is to be assessed as prescribed under Schedule-II Rs.15,000/- per annum and the multiplier applicable is 18 bringing the amount to Rs.2,90,000/-. As per Schedule 1/3 amount is to be deducted as personal and living expenditure but in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma (Supra) taking into consideration the claimant being mother 50% is to be deducted bring the amount to Rs.1,45,000/- added with Rs.5,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses totaling to Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.4,500/- as prescribed in the Schedule. Thus, under the heading pecuniary loss the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,55,000/- only. 13. The Apex Court on the issue of none pecuniary compensation has examined in the case of R.K. Malik (Supra) various decisions such as Halsburys’ Laws of England; 4th Edicition, Vol 12 page 446, cases of Ward vs. James (1965) 1 All E.R. 563 besides the decision of the Apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC 551 , Cmmon Cause, A registered Society vs. Union of India (1999) 6 SCC 667 , and has arrived at the conclusion in paragraph 24 of the judgment that “it is extremely difficult to quantify the non-pecuniary compensation as it is to a great extent based upon the sentiments and emotions. But the same could not be a ground for non-payment of any amount whatsoever by stating that it is difficult to quantify and pin point exact amount payment with mathematical accuracy.” In the case of R.K. Malik (Supra) the Apex Court has also examined its earlier decisions in the case of Lata Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197 , M.S. Grewal vs. Deep Chand Sood, (2001) 8 SCC 151 , and in paragraph 31 of the judgment has also arrived at the conclusion that: “It is well settled principle that in addition to awarding compensation for pecuniary losses, compensation must also be granted with regard to the future prospect of the children. It is incumbent upon the Court to consider the said aspect while awarding compensation. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the decision rendered by this Court in General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C. vs. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 ; Sarla Dixit Vs. Balwant Yadav, (1996) 3 SCC 179 and Lata Wadhwa case (supra).” 14. And, ultimately, in addition to the Award in pecuniary loss and fixed amount of Rs.75,000/- as non-pecuniary loss the Apex Court added Rs.75,000/- more to be paid under same heading. That means as non-pecuniary loss a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was awarded. But at the same time it is also to be taken care of that in all the cases referred to above the deceaseds were minor and School going children. 15. It is also to be taken into consideration that Delhi High Court in the case of Manwari vs. Harsh Vardhan & Others, 2010 ACJ 1977; Chiranji Lal and Another vs. Mangat Ram & Others, 2011 ACJ 614; has not only refused to deduct any amount towards personal expenditure and cost of living but awarded Rs.75,000/- each to compensate in both the cases as non-pecuniary losses and in both the cases (supra) the deceased were also School going and under 15 years of age. 16. Now, coming to the case in hand, the deceased was a third year student of Mining Engineering and just after completing one year of his studies had been expecting proper placement and substantial income based on undisputed high academic records in career right from childhood. 16. Now, coming to the case in hand, the deceased was a third year student of Mining Engineering and just after completing one year of his studies had been expecting proper placement and substantial income based on undisputed high academic records in career right from childhood. The Institution wherein he was studying his also a premier Institute having good reputation as borne out from the materials on record and there is no controversy in this regard. 17. Thus, double of the amount which was awarded in a case of minor or School going children may be said just compensation though this amount also cannot meet the loss suffered by the parents due to untimely death of their prospective son and, in fact, no amount can be a replacement. Thus, Rs.3,00,000/- is awarded as non-pecuniary loss. This may perhaps be in consonance with the decision of Apex Court in case of State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur, (2003) 7 SCC 486 wherein it is said that: “7. It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense “damages” which in turn borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or like can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be “just” and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be “just” compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of “just” compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of “just” compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression “which appears to it to be just” a wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression “just” denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just.” 18. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.4,55,000/- is awarded to mother of the deceased with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the application till actual payment. The appellant is directed to pay all the amount within six weeks failing which they shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9%. 19. With the above modification in the Award, the Appeal stands disposed of. The statutory deposit be transmitted to the Claim Tribunal for payment to the claimant.