ORDER : 1. The claimants/appellants herein challenge the Judgment/Award passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi dated 7th day of April, 2011 in Compensation Case no. 35 of 2001 whereby and where under the Claim Tribunal has directed the present respondent no.2- the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay the just compensation of Rs. 1,96,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of closing of the evidence of the claimants i.e. 12.05.2008 within the period of 60 days failing which the Insurance Co. would have to pay interest @ 8% per annum till its payment. 2. The claimants in the present case are the father and mother of the deceased Sampoorna Chandra, who died on 14.06.2000 at about 10:30 a.m. while he along with his friend were going to Mahalaxmi Fibre Mill, Ormanjhi on a scooter bearing registration no. BPY- 551 and when they reached near Delatoli on NH-33, a Gas Tanker (Ashoka Leyland) bearing registration HR-29B-7835, which was being driven rashly and negligently in uncontrollable speed by its driver dashed against the scooter from back side. The deceased Sampoorna Chandra, who was a pillion rider, fell on the road and crushed under the wheels of the said gas tanker and died on the spot. On the fardbeyan of Nirmal Krishna Chandra, the brother of the deceased, Sadar P.S. Case no. 98 of 2000 dated 14.06.2000 was instituted under Sections 279, 337, 427 and 304(A) of the I.P.C. against the driver of the said tanker. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination to RMCH, Ranchi where the doctor after autopsy found ante-mortem injures on the person of the deceased caused by hard and blunt substance and the death was caused due to the said injuries. After investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the driver Ranjit Singh of the said tanker. The deceased on the said fateful day was aged about 24 years and was unmarried with a brilliant career as a first class engineering degree with distinction and he was awarded degree only in the month of January, 2000. As pleaded, the deceased was looking for a job and was also interested in further education for his bright future. It was further pleaded that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending gas tanker. As pleaded, the deceased was looking for a job and was also interested in further education for his bright future. It was further pleaded that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending gas tanker. The appellants, who are the old father and mother, claimed a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. 3. After notice by the Claim Tribunal, the Insurance Co. appeared and filed written statement but neither the owner nor the driver of the offending tanker appeared in court or filed any written statement and so, the case proceeded exparte against them. The Insurance Co.-the opposite party no.2 in the written statement filed in the court below denied the claim of the claimants on the ground that though the vehicle in question was insured with the Insurance Company on the relevant date but the claim application was bad due to non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties as the owner and insurer of the offending scooter were not impleaded as parties. The further pleading was that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the driver and since there was a contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the offending scooter also, they are equally liable to pay the compensation amount and the amount claimed by the claimants is highly excessive. 4. The Claim Tribunal after appreciating the evidences and pleadings of both the parties, allowed the compensation as indicated above but being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the claimants have preferred this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned Judgment/Award as bad in law and perverse seriously contended that the Claims Tribunal failed to appreciate that the deceased was an engineering graduate with distinction and the entire future of the deceased was bright and prosperous but the court below without considering the future prospect of the deceased decided the compensation as just compensation by computing the compensation on “notional income” of the deceased. It was also submitted that the court below besides computing the compensation on the basis of the notional income has awarded only Rs.2,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate of the deceased, which is against the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. It was also submitted that the court below besides computing the compensation on the basis of the notional income has awarded only Rs.2,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate of the deceased, which is against the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another; (2009) 6 SCC 121 and the subsequent judgments Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others; (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Reshma Kumari and others Vs. Madan Mohan and another, (2013) 9 SCC 65 [ : 2013(3) JLJR (SC)292] and also failed to consider the future prospect of the deceased. 6. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel Mr. D.G.Ghosh appearing for the opposite party no.2- The Oriental Insurance Company Limited in support of the impugned Judgment/Award contended that the just compensation award by the court below does not need any interference as it is based on the proper appreciation of the settled law and as the deceased died when he was unemployed, the question of future prospect cannot be considered in computing the compensation amount. 7. Before I enter into the veils of submissions of the learned counsels, it is necessary to examine the word “just compensation”, which has been explained in Sarla Verma (Smt.) case (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the expression “just compensation” holding that the compensation awarded by a Tribunal does not become “just compensation” merely because the Tribunal considers it to be just. “Just compensation” is adequate compensation, which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. Now, I would like to examine the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal to see as to whether the said amount comes within the purview of “just compensation” or not. 8. Apparently, the court below on the basis of the evidences adduced by the complainants came to the findings that the deceased Sampoorna Chandra died in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tanker and held that the Insurance Co shall be liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 8. Apparently, the court below on the basis of the evidences adduced by the complainants came to the findings that the deceased Sampoorna Chandra died in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tanker and held that the Insurance Co shall be liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. The Claim Tribunal further held that the deceased was aged about 27 years on the fateful day but relied on the notional annual income of Rs,36,000/- of the deceased for computation of the total compensation amount i.e. @ Rs.3,000/- per month. The deceased was an engineering graduate but on the fateful day, he was not employed anywhere. The Insurance Co. has not brought any document in rebuttal to show that the deceased was not an engineering graduate as pleaded by the claimants. In the case Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and another, (2010) 10 SCC 254 [: 2011(1) JLJR (SC)16], the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the issue relating to award of compensation to the appellant of that case, who had suffered grievous injuries in a road accident and on the date of accident, the victim was 25 years old and was student of Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) held in paragraph 13 to 15 as follows:- “13. The appellant at the time of accident was a final year Engineering (Mechanical) student in a reputed college. He was a remarkably brilliant student having passed all his semester examinations in distinction. Due to the said accident he suffered grievous injuries and remained in coma for about two months. His studies got interrupted as he was moved to different hospitals for surgeries and other treatments. For many months his condition remained serious; his right hand was amputated and vision seriously affected. These multiple injuries ultimately led to 70% permanent disablement. He has been rendered incapacitated and a career ahead of him in his chosen line of Mechanical Engineer got dashed forever. He is now in a physical condition that he requires domestic help throughout his life. He has been deprived of pecuniary benefits which he could have reasonably acquired had he not suffered permanent disablement to the extent of 70% in the accident. 14. On completion of Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) from the prestigious institute like BIT, it can be reasonably assumed that he would have got a good job. He has been deprived of pecuniary benefits which he could have reasonably acquired had he not suffered permanent disablement to the extent of 70% in the accident. 14. On completion of Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) from the prestigious institute like BIT, it can be reasonably assumed that he would have got a good job. The appellant has stated in his evidence that in the campus interview he was selected by Tata as well as Reliance Industries and was offered pay package of Rs.3,50,000/- per annum. Even if that is not accepted for want of evidence in support thereof, there would not have been difficulty from him getting some decent job in the private sector. Had he decided to join government service and got selected, he would have been put in the pay scale of Assistant Engineer and would have at least earned Rs.60,000/- per annum. Wherever he joined, he had a fair chance of some promotion and remote chance of some high position. But uncertainties of life cannot be ignored taking relevant facts into consideration. In our opinion, it is fair and reasonable to assess his future earnings at Rs.60,000/- per annum taking the salary and allowances payable to an Assistant Engineer in public employment as the basis. Since he suffered 70% permanent disability, the future earnings may be discounted by 30% and, accordingly, we estimate upon the facts that the multiplicand should be Rs.42,000/- per annum. 15. The appellant at the time of accident was about 25 years. As per the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma (supra) the operative multiplier would be 18. The loss of future earnings by multiplying the multiplicand of Rs.42,000/- by a multiplier of 18 comes to Rs.7,56,000/-. The damages to compensate the appellant towards loss of future earnings, in our considered judgment, must be Rs.7,56,000/-. The Tribunal awarded him Rs.1,50,000/- towards treatment including the medical expenses. The same is maintained as it is and, accordingly, the total amount of compensation to which the appellant is entitled is Rs.9,06,000/-“. The damages to compensate the appellant towards loss of future earnings, in our considered judgment, must be Rs.7,56,000/-. The Tribunal awarded him Rs.1,50,000/- towards treatment including the medical expenses. The same is maintained as it is and, accordingly, the total amount of compensation to which the appellant is entitled is Rs.9,06,000/-“. In the light of the ratio decided in the above case, the deceased, who was a First Class engineering graduate from a reputed Engineering College, would have put in the basic pay scale of Engineer even if he would have decided to join government service, his annual income would have at least Rs.60,000/- per annum and the deceased had a fair chance of some promotion and remote chance of some high position and uncertainties of life as decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case cannot be ignored taking relevant factors into consideration. In my opinion, it is fair and reasonable to assess the annual income of the deceased at Rs.60,000/-. The deceased at the time of accident was about 27 years. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma case (supra), the operative multiplier considering the age of the claimants would be 9 and above that the future prospect is also to be considered. Apparently, the Claim Tribunal has not considered the future prospect of the deceased while computing the compensation amount. Applying the principles laid down in Sarla Verma (Smt.) case (supra) as explained in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others; (2012) 6 SCC 421 [ : 2012(2) JLJR (SC)420] and Reshma Kumari (supra) as well as the instant case, the compensation has to be reassessed as follows:- Sl. No. Heads Calculation (i) Annual Income Rs. 60,000/- (ii) 30 % of the annual income to be added as future prospects (Rs. 60,000 + Rs. 18,000)= Rs. 78,000/- per annum (iii) 1/3rd of the total annual income deducted as personal expenses of the deceased (Rs. 78,000 - Rs. 26,000) = Rs.52,000/- per annum (iv) Compensation after multiplier of 9 as the court below has considered the claimants within the age group of 55-60 years. (Rs. 52,000 x 9)=Rs.4,68000/- (v) For transportation of the body Rs. 5,000/- (vi) Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- (vii) Due to deprivation of love and affection of their son Rs. 20,000/- Total Compensation amount (Rs.4,68,000 + Rs.5,000 + Rs. 10,000 + 20,000) = Rs.5,03,000/- 9. (Rs. 52,000 x 9)=Rs.4,68000/- (v) For transportation of the body Rs. 5,000/- (vi) Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- (vii) Due to deprivation of love and affection of their son Rs. 20,000/- Total Compensation amount (Rs.4,68,000 + Rs.5,000 + Rs. 10,000 + 20,000) = Rs.5,03,000/- 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of the court below is, hereby, set aside and it is declared that the total compensation amount payable to claimants-appellants would be Rs.5,03,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Three Thousand) only. This total compensation amount after enhancement will carry interest @ 6 % per annum as awarded by the court below from the date of filing of the claim application till its realisation. The amount, which has already been paid to the claimants-appellants, if any, shall be deducted from the total enhanced compensation amount.