JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the Award dated 24.11.2008 in M.V.O.P. No.566 of 2006 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur, (for short the Tribunal), both claimants and Insurance Company preferred M.A.C.M.A No.920 of 2009 and M.A.C.M.A No.1003 of 2009 respectively. 2) The facts briefly are that: a) The deceased K.Sandhya Rani was a Post Graduate in Micro-Biology. She wished to pursue her further studies in USA and appeared GRE and TOFFEL examinations. While so, on 28.10.2005 she received a call from Progressive International to come to Hyderabad. Due to heavy rains and floods during past few days, she took the bus and travelled from Guntur but was forced to stop on National High Way 202. The driver and conductor requested passengers to seek their own personal conveyance to reach Hyderabad, as bus could not be moved further. On the request of the bus conductor, one Sk.Khaja Basha, who was proceeding on Bajaj motor cycle bearing No.AP 12E 4673 towards Hyderabad city agreed to take the deceased to Hyderabad as pillion rider. When they reached near Ghatkesar Bridge, a Tempo bearing No.AP 10 U 8029 came in the opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and dashed motor cycle causing the death of rider and pillion rider. It was averred that the Tempo driver was responsible for the accident and due to abrupt death of the deceased she lost her bright future and her parents became destitutes. On these pleas, the claimants who are parents, brother and grand father of deceased Sandhya Rani filed M.V.O.P. No.566 of 2006 against respondents 1 and 2 who are the owner and insurer of the offending Tempo and claimed Rs.16,22,000/- as compensation. b) First respondent remained ex parte. c) R2Insurance Company filed counter and opposed the claim by denying all the material averments in the petition. R2 opposed the claim mainly on the contention that the accident was occurred due to fault of the rider of the motor cycle. It also contended that the driver of the Tempo had no valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. Finally it contended that the claim was excessive and exorbitant. d) During the trial, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked on behalf of the claimants. Respondent No.2 did not adduce any evidence. It also contended that the driver of the Tempo had no valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. Finally it contended that the claim was excessive and exorbitant. d) During the trial, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked on behalf of the claimants. Respondent No.2 did not adduce any evidence. e) Award shows, issue No.1 is concerned, the Tribunal relying upon the eye-witness evidence of PW3 coupled with Ex.A.1FIR, Ex.A2 charge sheet, Ex.A3scene of offence of panchanama, Ex.A4inquest report held that the accident was occurred due to Tempo driver. On issue No.2 touching compensation is concerned, the Tribunal awarded in all Rs.6,81,000/- under different heads against respondents 1 and 2 as follows: Loss of dependency - Rs.6,60,000/- Loss of estate - Rs. 15,000/- Funeral expenses - Rs. 3,000/- Transport charges - Rs. 3,000/- ____________ Rs.6,81,000/- _____________ Hence the appeal by both parties. 3) Heard arguments of Sri G.Pedda Babu, learned counsel for appellants/ claimants in MACMA No.920 of 2009 and respondents in MACMA No.1003 of 2009 and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company in MACMA No.1003 of 2009 and respondent No.2 in MACMA No.920 of 2009. Though notice was served on owner of the vehicle, there is no representation on his behalf. 4) The parties in these two appeals are referred to as they stood before the Tribunal. 5 a) Challenging the award as inadequate, learned counsel for claimants firstly argued that the Tribunal erred in taking the contribution of the deceased to her family as Rs.5,000/- per month. Considering her qualifications and job opportunity she got under Ex.X1-appointment order, the Tribunal ought to have taken her monthly income at Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/-. Learned counsel relying upon B.Ramulamma vs. Venkatesh Bus Union, Lingarajapuram, Bangalore and another submitted that in a similar case for the death of a computer engineering student, the notional income was fixed at Rs.12,000/- per month. b) Secondly, learned counsel argued that having regard to the bright future of the deceased, some addition must be made to the notional income of deceased towards her future prospects. c) Thirdly, learned counsel argued that the Tribunal erred in taking the age of the mother instead of the age of the deceased for selection of multiplier. b) Secondly, learned counsel argued that having regard to the bright future of the deceased, some addition must be made to the notional income of deceased towards her future prospects. c) Thirdly, learned counsel argued that the Tribunal erred in taking the age of the mother instead of the age of the deceased for selection of multiplier. He relied upon the following decisions to buttress his arguments that the age of the deceased has to be taken: 1) M. Mansoor and another vs. United India Insurance Company Limited 2) N.Surender Rao vs. B.Swamy d) Finally he argued that the tribunal awarded very low amount of Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses and basing on the decision reported in Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh and others the compensation needs to be enhanced. 5 a) Per contra impugning the award as highly excessive and untenable, learned standing counsel for Insurance Company, firstly argued that the Tribunal already awarded a high compensation despite the fact that the deceased was only a student and wishing to pursue her further studies in abroad and that she was not an earning member by the date of accident. He thus argued that there is no need to enhance the compensation but needs to be scaled down. b) Secondly, he argued that in case of death of a bachelor, the age of parents but not the deceased will be relevant for selection of multiplier. In fact in the following decisions, the Supreme Court considered the age of the parents for computation of compensation. 1) Radha Krishna vs. Gokul and others 2) H.S Ahammed Hussain and another vs. Irfan Ahammed and another c) Thirdly, learned counsel for Insurance Company argued that the claimants do not deserve Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and on the other hand, in the decision reported in Manasvi Jain vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Limited , Honble Apex Court awarded only Rs.5,000/-. He thus prayed to allow his appeal and dismiss the claimants appeal. 6) In the light of the above rival arguments, the point for determination is: Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or needs intervention? 7) POINT: Adequacy of compensation is bone of contention in the above appeals. Evidenceboth oral and document would show that the deceased was Post Graduate in Micro-biology and Bio-chemistry. 6) In the light of the above rival arguments, the point for determination is: Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or needs intervention? 7) POINT: Adequacy of compensation is bone of contention in the above appeals. Evidenceboth oral and document would show that the deceased was Post Graduate in Micro-biology and Bio-chemistry. She cleared GRE for prosecuting further studies in abroad and in the meanwhile as per Ex.X1 she was appointed as lecturer in the Department of Micro-Biology, Palanadu Nagaiah Chowdary and Kotha Raghuramaiah College of P.G Courses, Narasaraopet in which she was to join on 01.11.2005 had the fate was not cruel to her. In this back drop, the adequacy of compensation has to be tested. 8) Income of deceased is concerned, no doubt, she was not an employee and earning any income. However, she got a job as a lecturer in Micro-Biology. PW.4--the Senior Assistant in PNC & KRC PG College while deposing that Ex.X1-appointment order was issued by his college, has stated that she would have been paid Rs.10,000/- per month as consolidated pay if she joined. Of-course it is elicited in his cross-examination that Ex.X1 was silent with regard to pay particulars. a) Be that it may, PW.2Head of Department of Micro-Biology, JKC College, Guntur where the deceased did her post graduation deposed that the deceased was his student and she got First Division in her PG and she attended national seminar. He further stated that a post graduate will be placed with a minimum of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month and in the event of placement in any pharmaceutical company there will be a possibility of paying upto Rs.15,000/- also. There is no reason to discard the evidence of PWs.2 and 4. The deceased has already possessed requisite qualification in Micro Biology to be placed in a pharmaceutical company to get a decent job. In fact she was offered lecturer-ship with a consolidated pay of Rs.10,000/-. b) In the cited decision B.Ramulammas case (1 supra), a Division Bench of our High Court fixed notional income at Rs.12,000/- to BE Graduate student who died in a Motor Vehicle Accident. Considering the above judgment and also the qualifications of the deceased, the notional income of the deceased can be fixed at Rs.10,000/- in my view. Considering her future prospects, a sum of Rs.2,000/- can also be added to the above amount. Considering the above judgment and also the qualifications of the deceased, the notional income of the deceased can be fixed at Rs.10,000/- in my view. Considering her future prospects, a sum of Rs.2,000/- can also be added to the above amount. Thus the monthly earnings of the deceased comes to Rs.12,000/-. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation Honble Apex Court observed that in case of death of a deceased bachelor, 50% of his/her income shall be deducted towards personal expenditure. Hence her net contribution to the family comes to Rs.6,000/-. Her annual contribution comes to Rs.72,000/- (Rs.6,000/- X 12). c) Then multiplier is concerned as already stated supra, the Tribunal taking the age of deceaseds mother (1st claimant) selected 11 as multiplier, which is impugned by the claimants. Their case is that the age of the deceased ought to have been accepted following the dictum laid down by Apex Court and also our High Court. The same is rebutted by counsel for Insurance Company relying upon another decision of Apex Court. Hence I perused all the citations. In the decision cited by the claimants, the Apex Court as well as our High Court held that in case of death of deceased bachelor, the age of the deceased rather than his/ her parents shall be taken up for selection of multiplier. No doubt, in Radha Krishnas case (5 supra) cited by Insurance Company, the Supreme Court appeared to have taken the age of the parents for computation of compensation. However, in that decision, the ratio does not appear to be whose age was to be adopted for selection of multiplier. So the same cannot be followed. So far as the Division Bench decision in H.S Ahammed Hussains case (6 supra) is concerned, the age of the parents was no doubt taken for selection of multiplier. However, the Division Bench of our High Court in N.Surender Raos case (3 supra) by referring several earlier judgments of Apex Court including H.S Ahammed Hussains case (6 supra) and Radha Krishnas case (5 supra) has observed that the Full Bench of Apex Court in the case of Amrith Bhanu vs. National Insurance Company Limited , laid down certain guidelines which became a precedent and have to be followed. On such observation the Division Bench of our High Court has come to conclusion that the age of the deceased bachelor shall be taken into consideration. On such observation the Division Bench of our High Court has come to conclusion that the age of the deceased bachelor shall be taken into consideration. d) In the light of above case law, the argument of Insurance company cannot be accepted. Consequently, the selection of multiplier basing on the age of the mother as did by Tribunal also cannot be approved. Hence age of deceased is taken for selection of multiplier. As per Sarla Vermas case (8 supra), 18 is provided for the age of the deceased girl. However, considering the fact that had she alive she would have left her parental home after marriage in which case her contribution to her parents would be unlikely, 12 is considered as suitable multiplier. So loss of dependency comes to Rs.8,64,000/- (Rs.72,000/- x 12) e) Then funeral expenses is concerned, the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,000/-. In Rajeshs case (4 supra) Apex Court considering the facts that the price index was increased and funeral expenses does not only mean the fee paid in the crematorium or fee paid for use of spacing in the cemetery but includes many other expenses in connection with funeral depending upon the religion, has held that funeral expenses shall be awarded atleast at Rs.25,000/-. Whereas in Manasvi Jains case (7 supra) cited by Insurance Company no doubt Apex Court in that particular case awarded Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. However, in that case, the adequacy or otherwise of funeral expenses was not an issue and hence not discussed. Therefore, following the Rajeshs case (4 supra) and also considering the fact that the deceased died on the highway at Ghatkesar and she was brought all the way to Guntur by her parents for performing funeral rites by following the relevant religious ceremonies, funeral expenses is increased to Rs.25,000/-. Thus, the total compensation payable to claimants can be detailed under different heads is as follows: loss of dependency - Rs.8,64,000/- loss of estate - Rs. 15,000/- funeral expenses - Rs. 25,000/- transport charges - Rs. 3,000/- ____________ Rs.9,07,000/- ____________ So, the compensation is enhanced by Rs.2,26,000/- (Rs.9,07,000/- minus Rs.6,81,000/-) 9) In the result, both the appeals are disposed of and ordered as follows: a) MACMA No.920 of 2009 filed by the claimants is partly allowed and compensation is enhanced by Rs.2,26,000/-. 15,000/- funeral expenses - Rs. 25,000/- transport charges - Rs. 3,000/- ____________ Rs.9,07,000/- ____________ So, the compensation is enhanced by Rs.2,26,000/- (Rs.9,07,000/- minus Rs.6,81,000/-) 9) In the result, both the appeals are disposed of and ordered as follows: a) MACMA No.920 of 2009 filed by the claimants is partly allowed and compensation is enhanced by Rs.2,26,000/-. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing this appeal till the date of realization. Respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of this judgment, failing which, execution can be taken out against them. b) MACMA No.1003 of 2009 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. c) No order as to costs in both the appeals. As a squeal, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.