Judgment 1. These two appeals arise out of the Judgment and award passed by the MACT, Bangalore, in MVC No.4487/2005 dated 17th April, 2006. MFA No.8987/2008 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the liability and so also the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. MFA 9600/2008 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation being not satisfied with the compensation awarded to them by the tribunal. Therefore all these matters are heard together. 2. We have heard Sri T.N. Raghupathy, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants and Sri O. Mahesh, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. 3. The facts leading to these appeals are as hereunder:- The claimants are the parents of one Vydehi, who died in the road traffic accident that occurred on 5-5-2004 near ITI College Gundlupet, on account of the head on collision between Mercedes Benz car bearing No.KA- 01- MA- 1305 and bus bearing No.KA- 03-C-4050. Kum.Vydehi was the only child to the claimants. They have no other issues. She was aged about 21 years and was studying Hotel Management Degree course at Christ College, which is one of the best Institutions in Bangalore. She was not only a brilliant student in her studies but also engaged herself in sports and other cultural activities. She had received various prizes, medals and certificates. She was also a partner in M/s. Peenya Package Projects getting profit of 40% in the firm's business which is the family business of the claimants and the partners of the said firm are the claimants herein the deceased Vydehi and the son of the 2nd claimant's younger brother. According to the claimants the deceased Vydehi was getting a profit of not less than Rs.8 to 10,00,000/- lakhs per annum as per the income-Tax returns and on account of the accident the firm was reconstituted and the profit and loss sharing was also varied as per the deed of reconstitution. On account of the same, the petitioners have lost the income from the firm's business since 40% of the income of the firm has been divided amongst the claimants. It is also the case of the claimants that the deceased had a brilliant career and she would have come out with flying colours from the college after Graduation and she would have also earned not less than Rs.3,00,000/- per annum after obtaining Graduation. It is also the case of the claimants that the deceased had a brilliant career and she would have come out with flying colours from the college after Graduation and she would have also earned not less than Rs.3,00,000/- per annum after obtaining Graduation. On this count, the claimants made the claim. The claim petition was resisted by the Insurance Company on the ground that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car alone but the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the driver of the bus. The present Insurance Company is the insurer of the car in which the deceased was travelling. The tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the driver of both the vehicles. Aggrieved by the finding of the tribunal on the question of contributory negligence the Insurance Company of the bus had filed an appeal which appeal came to be allowed holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car only which has been insured by the present appellant-insurance Company. 4. In this background what is to be considered by us in this appeal is whether the compensation of Rs.22,76,000/- is awarded to the claimants by the tribunal is on the lower side or on higher side because the claimants are seeking enhancement of the compensation. The Insurance Company is questioning the quantum of compensation as on higher side. 5. Mr. T.N. Raghupathv, the learned counsel for the claimants submits the tribunal did not consider the evidence let-in by both the parties properly. According to him, Kum.Vydehi was the only daughter of the claimants. She was participating in the firm's business. She was also studying in Christ College. Therefore, the loss of income from the firm has not been properly considered by the tribunal. The income arrived at by the tribunal in a sum of Rs.10,000/-per month as her notional income after graduation from the Christ College is on lower side. Therefore, he requests the Court to set aside the finding of the tribunal so far as quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. 6. To support his case he has relied upon two Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, he requests the Court to set aside the finding of the tribunal so far as quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. 6. To support his case he has relied upon two Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Firstly, in the case of HELEN C.REBELLO & OTHERS vs. MAHARASTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION reported in 1999 ACJ 10 and also the in the case of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., AND OTHERS vs. PATRICIA JEAN MAHAJAN AND OTHERS reported in (2002) 6 SCC 281 . Relying upon these two decisions he contends that the tribunal was required to take into account the loss of income from the firm's business on account of death of Vydehi. According to him, after the death of Vydehi even if the assets of the deceased Vydehi in the firm has been devolved upon the claimants still the loss suffered by the claimants was required to be considered by the tribunal. He further contends that the finding of the tribunal that the deceased might have earned Rs.10,000/-per month after securing a employment after Graduation is on lower side and the same is required to be set aside. He lastly contends that the compensation awarded on conventional heads is too meager and on lower side. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contends that the facts involved in the present case and the facts involved in the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PATRICIA JEAN MAHAJAN are entirely different. It was held therein that the social security amount and the amount from the LIC received by the widow and the children of the deceased cannot be deducted while computing the compensation by the tribunal because the aforesaid amount would have accrued to the deceased after maturity and the contribution was made by the deceased towards the LIC premium and social security system. 8. He further contends that even the case of HELEN C. REBELLO has no application to the facts of this case. 8. He further contends that even the case of HELEN C. REBELLO has no application to the facts of this case. In HELEN REBELLO's case what the Hon'ble Supreme Court held is that any insurance amount received by the legal heirs of the deceased cannot be deducted because the premium was paid by the deceased during his lifetime and therefore he contends that the aforesaid two Judgments are distinguishable and cannot be attracted if there is loss of income of business on account of death of Vydehi. 9. According to him, Vydehi was admitted to the benefit of the firm when she was a minor and she had not made any contribution while inducting her as a partner of the firm. Since it is a family business she was inducted into the partnership firm by her parents. He further contends that she had not participated in the business of the firm since she was a College student. If there is any change in the partnership concern, the profit and loss is to be distributed equally amongst the claimants and Sriram. It is only on account of family arrangement between the claimants and Sriram and therefore there cannot be a loss of income since the firm is continued and he therefore requests the Court that the aforesaid Judgments relied upon by the claimants cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. He lastly contends that there is no guarantee that the deceased would have earned a sum of Rs. 10,000/-as held by the tribunal. According to him, the compensation awarded by the tribunal considering her notional income of Rs.10,000/- is liable to be set aside. In the circumstances, he requests the court to dismiss the appeal. 10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties the only point to be considered by us is: "Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is required to be enhanced, reduced or confirmed?" The admitted facts are that there is no dispute in regard to the age of the deceased and the relationship of the claimants with her and it is also not in dispute that the claimants have no other children. 11. 11. The partnership deed produced before the tribunal discloses that the deceased Vydehi while she was a minor and minor Sriram were admitted to the benefit of the firm and they are entitled for the profit only and not liable for loss. As per the partnership deed the claimants alone are liable for the loss of income of the business. 12. Even after attaining the age of majority the deceased Vydehi and Sriram continued as the partners of the firm. After the death of Vydehi her share in the partnership firm is reconstituted and her share has been divided amongst the claimants and Sriram. 13. It is not in dispute that after the death of Vydehi her assets in the firm would devolve upon the claimants and thereafter for their convenience the firm's income has been divided between the claimants and Sriram as per the newly re-constituted partnership firm. 14. The income tax returns produced by the claimants would reveal that the deceased was getting Rs. 8,00,000/- to 10,00,000/-profit from the business. He further submits that after the death of Vydehi there is reduction in the income of the claimants on account of sharing of profit between the claimants and Sriram since larger share is given to Sriram, it is contended by Mr. O. Mahesh, that it is a family arrangement. It is for their benefit. Be that as it may, the fact remains that deceased was College student studying in Christ College. In addition to that, she also actively participating in sports and other cultural activities. P.W.I has stated that she had involved herself in various charitable and social activities and her daughter Vydehi was also assisting her in such activities of the 1st claimant. Therefore, the questloh is whether the deceased Vydehi had really participated in the firm's business as a partner of the firm? There is no material to show that she was actively participating in the firm's business and that on account of her personal exertion the firm was getting income. 15. In the Judgments relied upon by Mr. Therefore, the questloh is whether the deceased Vydehi had really participated in the firm's business as a partner of the firm? There is no material to show that she was actively participating in the firm's business and that on account of her personal exertion the firm was getting income. 15. In the Judgments relied upon by Mr. T.N. Raahuparthy, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., AND OTHERS vs. PATRICIA JEAN MAHAJAN AND OTHERS, while considering the question whether the amount received by the L.Rs of the deceased as social security amount could be deducted while computing the quantum of compensation by the tribunal and also the amount received by LRs on the insurance policy obtained by the deceased. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that these amounts cannot be deducted while computing the quantum of compensation by the tribunal because these amounts are received by the legal heirs of the deceased on account of the payment made by the deceased towards the insurance premium and also towards social security amount. 16. Similarly in the case of HELEN REBELLO, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the insurance amount received by the claimants cannot be deducted while awarding the compensation. 17. In the instant case, it is not the question of deducting the insurance or social security amount. What the claimants a/e claiming before us is that the loss of income due to the death of Vydehi. 18. So far as her income is concerned, we would have certainly accepted the argument of Mr. Raghuparthy provided that the deceased was actually participating in the firm's business and on account of her death if there is a loss of income, while assessing the loss of dependency. In the instant case, she was only a sleeping partner. She was not involving in the firm's business as she was a minor and the same status continued even after attaining the age of majority since she was a student involved in various activities we are of the view that the loss of income from the business cannot be considered while assessing the loss of dependency. 19. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties we have to consider what would be the loss of dependency. 20. We have perused the entire material placed by the claimants. Admittedly, she was a brilliant student. She has won several prizes and awards. 19. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties we have to consider what would be the loss of dependency. 20. We have perused the entire material placed by the claimants. Admittedly, she was a brilliant student. She has won several prizes and awards. She was actively pursuing her career. Considering the family background that the 1st claimant is a Doctor involving herself in social and charitable activities and 2nd claimant being an industrialist and the deceased had even future prospects of going abroad and could have established her own Hotel Industry. It is no doubt true that the claimants have not let-in any evidence as to what would be her income. However, she would have joined service or established her own hotel after obtaining Degree. This Court can cake judicial notice of the probable income of such a person. Considering the family background, and her educational career we are of the view that her notional income cannot be assessed less than Rs.25,000/-per month. Accordingly, we hold that she would have earned atleast Rs.25,000/- per month. 21. The deceased was unmarried. 50% of her income has to be deducted towards her personal expenses and the loss of dependency has to be calculated at Rs.12,500/- per month x 12. Considering the age of the mother the appropriate multiplier would be 11. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 16,50,000/-. The accident occurred in front of ITI College, Gundlupet which is at a distance of more than 200 K.M. The dead body was transported from Gundlupet to Bangalore. Accordingly, we award a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation. We also award a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-towards loss of love and affection and loss to the estate. Thus the total compensation would come to Rs.I8,80,000/-. 22. In the result, MFA no.8987/2008 is allowed in-part. The compensation awarded by the tribunal is reduced to Rs. 18,80,000/-with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. MFA No.9600/2008 is dismissed. The amount in-deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the tribunal.