ORDER : 1. This is an appeal by the insurance company against the award dated 14.01.2013 passed in Claim Case No.14/2012 by the Court of Seventh Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, whereby as against the claim of Rs.27,60,000/-, total award of Rs.13,75,000/- has been passed. 2. Briefly stated facts, as was pleaded by the claimants in the claim petition, are that the deceased Prashant Sinha who was a boy of 19 years was a student of National Institute of Technology (NIT) Raipur. It was stated that the deceased was a brilliant student and therefore he was selected in NIT and had he been passed the Engineering, he would have earn minimum Rs.25,000/- per month. The claim was preferred by the mother & father of the deceased alleging that on 16.10.2011 at about 8 O'clock in the morning, the non-applicant No.1 Ramashray caused the accident and dashed the deceased by driving his vehicle i.e. Truck bearing No.OR 14 U 9396 in a rash and negligent manner whereby the deceased Prashant Sinha died on the spot because of the accident. It was stated that at the relevant time Prashant Sinha was going on his motorcycle bearing No.C.G.12 M 3864. 3. Replying the averments of the claim petition, the driver & owner i.e. Ramashray & Pradeep Kumar Chopda stated that at the relevant time the vehicle was being driven at a moderate speed but the accident had caused from the rear wheel of the Truck for the own negligence of the deceased Prashant Sinha. It was further stated that if at all it is held that the non-applicants were liable then in such eventuality since the vehicle was insured therefore the liability has to be incurred by the insurance company. 4. The insurance company in its reply has stated that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. It was further stated that at the time of accident, the deceased did not have a valid license. Rest of the averments of the petition were also denied. 5. Learned Tribunal after evaluating the evidence has held the future notional income of the deceased to Rs.15,000/- and thereafter by applying multiplier, the total award of Rs.13,75,000/- has been passed including all other heads. 6. The instant appeal is filed by the insurance company. Rest of the averments of the petition were also denied. 5. Learned Tribunal after evaluating the evidence has held the future notional income of the deceased to Rs.15,000/- and thereafter by applying multiplier, the total award of Rs.13,75,000/- has been passed including all other heads. 6. The instant appeal is filed by the insurance company. The learned counsel for the insurance company would submit that there was no rhyme and reason to arrive at an income of the deceased to Rs. 15,000/- per month. He would submit that admittedly the deceased was a student of NIT but by such facts the income cannot be substantiated to Rs.l5,000/- and therefore strictly confined his arguments on the quantum of the award and prayed that the award may be necessarily amended and reduced. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants/ respondents No.1 & 2 would submit that the very fact that the deceased was admitted to the NIT shows that he was a brilliant student. He contended that to get an admission in NIT, one has to clear AIEEE and only handful students are selected from all over India. Therefore, the brilliancy can be assumed He further submits that though the deceased was non-working student but only that factor cannot be the decisive of the fact that he would not earned the amount. He submits that it is quite obvious that after passing the engineering, being a student of NIT, he would have been absorbed in a company for the job and would have been highly placed. He therefore submits that the pecuniary loss and compensation should be granted considering the future prospect of the children. He would further submit that the learned Court below has arrived at a notional income of Rs.15,000/- considering the academic record of the deceased and therefore it was fixed at the minimum whereas actually the deceased would have earn much more above that. He would submit that since the income of Rs.15,000/- assessed i.e. minimum considering the inflation and other circumstances a minimum clause IV employees get more than Rs.15,000/- in an organization. He therefore stated that the order is well merited which do not call for any interference. 8. He would submit that since the income of Rs.15,000/- assessed i.e. minimum considering the inflation and other circumstances a minimum clause IV employees get more than Rs.15,000/- in an organization. He therefore stated that the order is well merited which do not call for any interference. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the driver & owner i.e. respondent No.3 & 4 would submit that the finding has been arrived at para 12 of the judgment that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending Truck was having valid license and the Truck was also insured with the insurance company. 9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 10. There is no appeal filed by the owner & driver. There is no challenge to the finding to the fact that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner which caused accident. Therefore, in absence of such challenge, the finding arrived at by the learned Court below is affirmed. 11. Now the question as to quantum of award, the learned Court below has assessed the income of the deceased to Rs.15,000- per month. The evidence of the claimants i.e. mother and father who have proved the documents and have placed the various mark sheets of school and certificates. These would go to show that the deceased was a brilliant student. The mother & father has stated categorically that the deceased was a student of National Institute of Technology in the first semester, which is also evident from the document placed on record and has stated that had he passed out the engineering, he would have absorbed to a minimum salary of Rs.25,000/- and the mother & father could have been dependent on him. 12. Though it is difficult for quantification of compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses in case of non-working student but in case of motor accident the Supreme Court in case of R.K. Malik & Another Vs. Kiran Pal & Others, (2009) 14 SCC 1 , has laid down the principles that there should be the endeavor to put the claimants in the pre-accidental position. The damages so awarded should be adequate sum of money that would put the party, who has suffered, in the same position if he had not suffered on account of the wrong. Kiran Pal & Others, (2009) 14 SCC 1 , has laid down the principles that there should be the endeavor to put the claimants in the pre-accidental position. The damages so awarded should be adequate sum of money that would put the party, who has suffered, in the same position if he had not suffered on account of the wrong. Compensation is therefore required to be• paid for prospective pecuniary loss i.e. future loss of income/dependency suffered on account of the wrongful act. The Supreme Court further has laid down the principle that in addition to the pecuniary losses, the law recognises that payment should also be made for non-pecuniary losses on account of, loss of happiness, pain, suffering and expectancy of life etc. While describing the non-pecuniary losses, the Court has observed 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 quantity and pinpoint the exact amount payable with mathematical accuracy. 13. On perusal of the evidence of this case and the different documents placed about the academic career of the deceased, this fact is itself fortifies that deceased had a brilliant academic career. Further having been selected in NIT, it proves the fact that deceased was more than an average student. The learned Court below had took the earning capacity of the deceased to Rs.15,000/- per month on the ground that after finishing the course of engineering, he would have get a minimum job to that level of salary. The different mark sheets produced goes to show that the student/deceased would have got comfortable placement in some organization and would have got comfortable salary. 14. In case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ganga Devi, III (2010) ACC 6 and in case of United India Insurance Co; Ltd. Vs. Bhoodev Prasad & Others3, 2012 (3) T.A.C. 774 (Delhi), this Court has held that the income of a student of a professional course should be taken according to his earning capacity after completing the course. The deceased in the present case after completing the engineering course would have certainly earned more than Rs.15,000/- per month. However, the learned Tribunal has held the salary to be Rs. The deceased in the present case after completing the engineering course would have certainly earned more than Rs.15,000/- per month. However, the learned Tribunal has held the salary to be Rs. 15,000/- per month and therefore the finding of the Tribunal in this regard is therefore upheld. 15. Since the deceased was an unmarried student therefore half of the deduction was made and therefore considering the age of the mother, the multiplier of 15 has been applied and thereby Rs.13,50,000/- has been arrived at. Further, the learned Court below has awarded Rs.25,000/- for loss of love & affection and for funeral expenses, thereby, a total amount of Rs.13,75,000/- has been passed. 16. Considering all the award so made, in my considered opinion, the learned Court below has not committed any illegality so as to hold that the award is bad in law or wrong computation has been committed. Accordingly, the appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.