JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vidya Kant Shukla, learned Counsel for the Claimant-respondent No. 1. 2. This First Appeal From order is directed against the award dated 6.7.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Meerut allowing the claim petition of the claimant-respondent No. 1, bearing number 524 of 2020 for compensation of Rs. 66,39,947/-. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the injured Sarthak Jain met with an accident on 2.5.2017 with a truck while he was driver upon a motorcycle of his friend Pranay Bist and the injured was moving in a right direction to the left of the road whereas truck driver was driving the truck rashly and hit the motorcycle. The truck driver immediately fled the spot. The injured fainted and was immediately taken to the hospital and went under treatment. The impact of the injury upon the injured was of the nature and decree that he suffered disability to the extent of 100% and motor system disability to the extent of 75%. The speech disability was also found to be too severe to the extent of 100% and 100% is the post head injury resulting in fits. Motor system disability is 75%. Bladder disability is 100%. So in the language of the medical practitioner, the highest score of disability is 100%. It has come to be established on record that the injured at the time of accident was 21 years of age and was a student of B.Tec. 2nd year. The tribunal framed as many as seven issues for determination which are quoted as under: A. Whether the driver of the truck No. U.P-17-AT-1888 was driving the truck rashly and negligently and hit the motorcycle of the injured as a result of such driving on 2.5.2017. B. Whether the driver of the motorcycle was having valid driving licence. C. Whether the truck driver was having valid licence. D. Whether the truck U.P.17-AT-1888 was duly ensured with HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. E. Whether it is a case of contributory negligence of the two vehicle drivers and if so what would be the effect. F. Whether the Claim Petition was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. G Whether the claimant is entitled for any compensation and if yes to what amount. 4. F. Whether the Claim Petition was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. G Whether the claimant is entitled for any compensation and if yes to what amount. 4. Both the Insurance Company as well as the claimant led their evidence in the matter. The Tribunal discussed and decided issue No. 1 and 5 together as they are related to each other. 5. Discussing the oral as well as documentary evidence led in regard to the above two issues. The Claims Tribunal recorded a categorical finding to the effect that soon after the accident, First Information Report (for short FIR) was lodged against the driver of the truck namely Shadab under Section 279, 337, 338 and 427 of Indian Penal Code and in which the charge-sheet had also been submitted by the police. 6. The tribunal relied upon the testimony of RW. 2 namely Pranay Bist who was driving the motorcycle being an independent witness account of the incident and who in his testimony has clearly narrated that the was driving a motorcycle on left side of the road and the truck driver while rashly and negligently driving the truck, hit the motorcycle from the wrong side and the truck driver soon thereafter fled the scene. Then the Tribunal relied upon the spot inspection memo from which it could be clearly located that the truck was almost moving in the middle of the road and hit the motorcycle which was coming from the opposite direction by taking the truck virtually across the road and, therefore, the Tribunal arrived at conclusion that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the motorcyclist in the accident and it was all due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. The Tribunal held that since the conduct of the truck driver in running away from the scene clearly established that he was at wrong and there was no evidence much less a substantial one of false implication of the truck driver in the incident. 7. The issue No. 2 is decided in the affirmative that the motorbike rider who was driving the vehicle was in possession of a valid driving license. 8. On issue No. 3 also it was held that looking to the driving license it was clearly established that the truck driver was also having valid driving license. 9. 7. The issue No. 2 is decided in the affirmative that the motorbike rider who was driving the vehicle was in possession of a valid driving license. 8. On issue No. 3 also it was held that looking to the driving license it was clearly established that the truck driver was also having valid driving license. 9. On issue No. 4 also Court relied upon the insurance policy and held that the insurance cover was w.e.f 16.2.2017 to 15.2.2018 and since the incident took place on 2.5.2017, the vehicle was fully ensured on the said date. 10. On the question of issue No. 6 the driver held to be not having any substance and so decided in the negative and on the question of compensation while deciding issue No. 7, the Court held that initially the injured was admitted to the Kailashi Hospital, Meerut where he was operated by Dr. Vipul Tyagi and as the condition started worsening, he was taken to Delhi on 7.5.2017 and was admitted in the Apollo Hospital and remained there from 8.5.2017 till 24.7.2017. In Delhi hospital surgery was done upon him and after some time he was again admitted to the hospital from 18.1.2018 till 23.1.2018. The tribunal has come to record the finding of fact that though the operation had been conducted upon the injured but injured left side had paralysed and was not able to rise from the bed and everything was carried on the bed itself. He was being fed by some other person and not able to conduct even his daily routine. 11. The tribunal examined various receipts and the prescriptions papers led in evidence before it about the expenses, incurred in the operation and the medicines etc. 12. P.W. 3 Mukesh Kumar was directed by the Deputy Director of the Apollo Hospital to be present before the tribunal and place the records relating to the admission, surgery etc. and the medication done upon the injured. The tribunal relied upon those documents which were not only duly certified even but even proved by the officer concerned who was sent by the Deputy Director of the Apollo Hospital for the said purpose. So the bills and expenses incurred upon the treatment of injured was Rs. 3,32,895/- vide receipt No. 18C/88 which bears the signature of the cashier of the Hospital Mr. So the bills and expenses incurred upon the treatment of injured was Rs. 3,32,895/- vide receipt No. 18C/88 which bears the signature of the cashier of the Hospital Mr. Dinesh Kumar and so far as bill dated 24.7.2017 is concerned, the total bill was 15,64,460/- in which payment was made up-to 70,140/- and there was bill dated 17.9.2017 for Rs. 13,03,180/- out of which Rs. 3,00,000/- were paid vide receipt No. 18-C dated 23.1.2018 and yet another bill was generated dated 23.1.2018 for Rs. 4,02,085 out of which Rs. 28,420 was paid. So the tribunal calculated the entire expenses incurred upon the treatment of the injured both in Kailashi Hospital, Meerut and also in Apollo Hospital, Delhi and the other bills of medicines etc. and total expenses incurred was found to the extent of Rs. 15,28,947/-. The tribunal held that the insurance company could not dispute all the bills nor, could establish that those bills in any manner were forged or fraudulent. The tribunal recorded that the condition of the injured clearly established that he had suffered maximum disability which also got fully proved from the testimony of RW. 1 and other certificates of treatment as well as medical certificate of the patient. 13. Considering the entire evidence led by the claimant in respect of the treatment of the injured, medical certificate and the medical reports, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the injured suffered from 100% disability. The injured was the student of B.Tech MIET, Meerut which has not been disputed by anyone. Relying upo the judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of Babli Dixit and another v. Satendra Kumar, wherein the monthly income of the injured was determined to be Rs. 20,000/- who was B.Tech student. The tribunal determined the monthly income of the injured as R. 15,000/- and thus Rs. 1,80,000/- per annum and since the injured has suffered disability of 100%, his income has been assessed to be Rs. 1,80,000/- without any deduction. The multiplier of 18 has been applied. 40% as future prospects has been added and so annual income has come to be assessed of Rs. 2,52,000/-. Towards the pain and suffering and loss of amenities Rs. 2,00,000/- have been added, towards future medical expenses 2,50,000/- has been added, towards loss of amenities Rs. 2,50,000/- has been added, for external nourishment Rs. 25,000/- has been added and Rs. 40% as future prospects has been added and so annual income has come to be assessed of Rs. 2,52,000/-. Towards the pain and suffering and loss of amenities Rs. 2,00,000/- have been added, towards future medical expenses 2,50,000/- has been added, towards loss of amenities Rs. 2,50,000/- has been added, for external nourishment Rs. 25,000/- has been added and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards attendant charges have been added. Total compensation there that has been computed is Rs. 66,39,947/- to be paid to the injured. However, Rs. 30,00,000/- has been directed to be deposited in the FDR for a period of three years. 14. Assailing the aforesaid, three arguments have been advanced by learned counsel for the appellant; one is contributory negligence, secondly vehicle had no permit; and had no statutory certificate and then the third one is that quantum of the compensation is too high in case of injured. 15. As far as the arguments of contributory negligence is concerned, we made a pointed query to the learned counsel for the appellant as to how could he show from the site plan that the findings returned by the tribunal is perverse on the said issue which was decided as issue No. 5 alongwith issue No. 1, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the site plan has not been brought on record but from the discussions and the order of the tribunal it is clearly revealed that the truck had hit from the side of the motorcyclist and, therefore, it was a case where the motorcycle and truck were moving in the same direction and, therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the finding of the tribunal that there was no case of contributory negligence is perverse. In order to test this argument we took our scanning eyes again through the findings of the tribunal on issue No. 1 and 5. It is a fact admitted to the parties that the Pranay Best who was the friend of injured was the pillion rider on a motorcycle which was being driven by the injured. There is no other eye-witness account of the incident. The insurance Company has also did not get any witness examined to establish as an independent witness account of the incident. So the testimony of Pranay Bist become significant to arrive at a conclusion as to in what manner the accident occurred. There is no other eye-witness account of the incident. The insurance Company has also did not get any witness examined to establish as an independent witness account of the incident. So the testimony of Pranay Bist become significant to arrive at a conclusion as to in what manner the accident occurred. Pranay Bist in his testimony has clearly stated that on 2.5.2017 at 9.30 hours in the morning while he alongwith his friend Sarthak Jain, the injured were going from Pallavpuram to MIET College Bye-Pass, Meerut that a truck No. U.P.17-AT-1888 being driven quite rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle by coming to a wrong side and that it hit the motorcycle from the front. Soon thereafter the truck driver fled the scene. Both Pranay Bist and the injured were studying in the B.Tech. 2nd year. Even in the cross-examination, he stated that at 10 a.m. there was exam and at around 9.20 when they reached bye pass of Pallavpuram square and were about to move on the Sardhana flyover, that they had seen the truck at some distance and that the front part of the truck of the driver side had hit the motorcycle. Sarthak had the helmet on his head but suffered fracture and soon he took the injured to the Kailashi Hospital. 16. These statements made in the testimony of the Pranay Bist have got fully corroborated by the spot inspection memo because in the spot inspection memo also as the tribunal has discussed, it is clearly reflected that the truck was on the middle of the road and immediately it turned to the right and hit the motorcycle while coming on the other side and the motorcyclist was already on his left, so naturally and rightly so, the conclusion is drawn that the truck hit the motorcycle from the front side and it was the fault of the truck driver alone that resulted in the accident and this is also further established from the conduct of the truck driver who immediately fled the scene. Had the motorcycle dashed into the truck, the situation would have been otherwise and then the motorcyclist would have dashed not from the front side but from the back side but this is not the case of the Insurance Company nor, the Insurance Company has led any evidence to establish that the spot inspection memo was wrongly prepared or that the testimony of the witness account of the incident was not trustworthy. Even before us the counsel for the Insurance Company could not dispute the spot inspection memo and the statement of fact recorded by the tribunal on the basis of testimony of the eye-witness account namely P.W. 2. 17. In such above view of the matter, therefore, the findings on issue No. 1 and 5 particularly issue No. 5 as has been questioned by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, cannot be held to be perverse and the argument, therefore is rejected. 18. In so far as issue No. 2 is concerned, we find that there is nothing on record to establish that this question was ever pressed before the tribunal because no issue has been framed regarding this point of vehicle fitness certificate and the route permit of the truck nor, any evidence has been led by the Insurance Company to prove that there was sufficient evidence and the tribunal failed to consider the same. All that has been argued before this Court is that in the written statement there was specific plea taken by the Insurance Company but while going through the entire written statement that has been appended to the affidavit filed in support of this appeal as Annexure 2, we do not find that any such additional plea was taken before the tribunal and so consequently and rightly the tribunal did not frame any issue. Even otherwise if the plea was taken, it was the duty of the Insurance Company to have pressed the issue and if not framed, to make appropriate application but we find that the objection of route permit and fitness certificate have been very casually taken as a general objections in the written statement. Had the Insurance Company been serious about this point, it would have taken it as an additional plea in the written statement and would have insisted upon the tribunal to frame issue in that regard. 19. Had the Insurance Company been serious about this point, it would have taken it as an additional plea in the written statement and would have insisted upon the tribunal to frame issue in that regard. 19. In such above view of the matter, we now in this appeal are not inclined to frame any such issue nor, we find any argument supported by any material evidence in support thereof is brought on record in the present appeal to demonstrate that the truck did not have route permit or suffered from the fitness. This second argument is, therefore, rejected. 20. Now coming to the third argument regarding the computation of compensation, we have noticed in this regard that the medical certificate clearly demonstrate that the injured suffered almost 100% disability. Even if there is locomotive activity in the sense that parts are moving a little bit but if a person is suffering from paralysis and is not able to speak a word as he suffers from 100% disability and he also suffers from the fits due to head injury and is not able to eat himself, it is a case of vegetative stage. If the person dies, it comes as a cyclonic blow to the family that everybody seems to be ruined for a moment but gets recovered with the passage of time but in a case of injury if a person is reduced to a stage where he is completely bed ridden and not able to speak, nor eat himself and half of the body is paralysed then it causes death everyday to the members of the family. It is not a death of one person but it reduces the entire family to go under the trauma every moment of every hour, every day and such a situation can be said to be the worse than that of a death of a person. In the present case we find that despite heavy medical treatment carried out where huge medical expenses have been incurred and yet body of injured is reduced to status of a dead wood. A body lying on a bed always needing an attendant by his side with recurring other medical expenses and that too at an early age of 21, is all very painful beyond imagination. A body lying on a bed always needing an attendant by his side with recurring other medical expenses and that too at an early age of 21, is all very painful beyond imagination. How long such a person will continue when he is suffering from such a condition at a young age, nobody knows and, therefore, in our considered opinion in the various categories and heads, the amount of compensation which has been determined is quite reasonable one and does not require any interference. 21. In the Case of M.R. Krishna Murthi v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others, AIR (2019) SC 5625 (wherein the Court was dealing with the issue of further loss of earning in case of serious disability) the Apex Court referred to the judgment of Raj Kumar v. Ajai Kumar and another, (2011)1 SCC 343 , vide paragraph No. 22 and 23 that are as under: 22) In the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , where the victim suffered 45% disability to left lower limb and permanent functional disability of 25%, the Court held that it is a functional disability which would be the operative criteria for assessing the loss of future earnings and not physical disability. There is a detailed and lucid discussion of assessment of future loss of earning due to permanent disability, covering all possible facets and discussing every nuance of the subject-matter. After explaining the meaning of permanent disability and contrasting it with temporary disability and also the manner in which permanent disability of different limbs expressed by Doctors in the Disability Certificates is to be interpreted, the Court clarified that the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The manner in which the assessment is to be carried out is contained in the following passages in the said judgment: "12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent disability. The manner in which the assessment is to be carried out is contained in the following passages in the said judgment: "12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence: (i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement; (iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body,. that is, the permanent disability suffered by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity. 13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his-livelihood. xx xx xx 19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above: (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. xx xx xx 19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above: (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors." 23) From the conjoint reading of the aforesaid judgments, inter alia, following principles can be culled out which would be relevant for deciding the instant appeal: (i) In those cases where the victim of the accident is not an earning person but a student, while assessing the compensation for loss of future earning, the focus of the examination would be the career prospect and the likely earning of such a person in future. For example, where the claimant is pursuing a particular professional course, the poseer would be: what would have been his income had he joined a service commiserating with the said course. That can be the future earning. (ii) There may be cases where the victim is not, at that stage, doing any such course to get a particular job. He or she may be studying in a school. In such a case, future career would depend upon multiple factors like the family background, choice/interest of the complainant to pursue a particular career, facilities available to him/her for adopting such a career, the favourable surrounding circumstances to see which would have enabled the claimant to successfully pick up the said career etc. In such a case, future career would depend upon multiple factors like the family background, choice/interest of the complainant to pursue a particular career, facilities available to him/her for adopting such a career, the favourable surrounding circumstances to see which would have enabled the claimant to successfully pick up the said career etc. If the chosen field is employment, then the future earning can be taken on the basis of salary and allowances which are payable for such calling. In case, career is a particular profession, the future earning would depend on host of other factors on the basis of which chances to achieve success in such a profession can be ascertained. (iii) There may be cases like Deo Patodi where even a student, the claimant would have made earnings on part-time basis or would have received offer for a particular job. In such cases, these factors would also assume relevance. (iv) After ascertaining the likely earning of the victim in the aforesaid manner, the nature of injuries and disability suffered as a result thereof would be kept in mind while determining as to how much earning has been affected thereby. Here, impact of injuries on functional disability is to be seen. In case of death of victim, it would result in total loss of earning. In the case of injuries, the nature of disability becomes important. Such an exercise was undertaken in N. Manjegowda case. 22. The tribunal in the present case has relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Babli Dixit and another v. Satendra Kumar and others (Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.) wherein Midha, J. referred to judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rattan Kumar Dwivedi, and another Judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Anita, vide paragraph Nos. 11, 12 and 13 that run as under: 11. In HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rattan Kumar Dwivedi, the accident dated 21st July, 2008 resulted in the death of a national level sportsperson who was a student of B. Com. (Hons.). The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,40,000/- by taking the earning capacity of the deceased as Rs. 10,000/- per month which was challenged on the ground that minimum wages should have been applied by the Claims Tribunal. (Hons.). The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,40,000/- by taking the earning capacity of the deceased as Rs. 10,000/- per month which was challenged on the ground that minimum wages should have been applied by the Claims Tribunal. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, AIR 2012 SC 100 , this Court rejected the application of minimum wages to such cases. Considering the brilliant record of the student as a sportsperson, this Court determined the earning capacity of the deceased as Rs. 25,000/- per month and enhanced the compensation from Rs. 10,40,000/- to Rs. 24,50,000/-. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under: "14. In the present case, the deceased Apoorva Dwivedi was a student of B.Com (Hons.) at Bharti College, Delhi University. She was a sports person having won 86 prizes/certificates in athletics, track and field, gymnastics, baseball, soft ball, basketball, cricket etc. The deceased had secured second place in team event at 40th Delhi State Gymnastics Championship, 2001; best athlete of the year 2003-2004 at school and zonal level and first position in baseball in 52nd National School Games conducted by School Games Federation of India held from 23rd December to 28th December, 2006. The deceased was sports captain of Holy Child Senior Secondary School, Tagore Garden, New Delhi for the academic year 2007-08. Judicial notice is taken of the notifications for Government job for sports persons as well as advertisements in private jobs for sports persons, under which a graduate sports person can secure a job with a job in the pay scale of Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- per month. Considering that the deceased was a sports person with an extraordinary talent in various sports, namely, athletics, track and field, gymnastics, baseball, soft ball, basketball, cricket etc. and having been awarded 86 prizes/certificates, it is presumed that the deceased would have earned Rs. 25,000/- per month after completing her graduation. Deducting 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased and applying the multiplier of 14 according to the age of her mother, the loss of dependency is computed as Rs. 21,00,000/- [(Rs. 25,000/- 50%) x 12 x 14]. The compensation for loss of love and affection is enhanced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-; and compensation for pain and suffering is enhanced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Adding Rs. 21,00,000/- [(Rs. 25,000/- 50%) x 12 x 14]. The compensation for loss of love and affection is enhanced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-; and compensation for pain and suffering is enhanced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Adding Rs. 1,30,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 20,000/- towards funeral expenses, total compensation is computed as Rs. 24,50,000/- [21,00,000/- + 1,00,000/- + 1,30,000/- + 1,00,000/- + 20,000/-]. The Claims Tribunal has awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum which is on a lower side considering that the Supreme Court as well as this Court are consistently awarding interest @ 9% per annum. The rate of interest is enhanced from 7.5% to 9% per annum." 12. In HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lalta Devi, 2015 ACJ 2526 , the accident dated 19th June, 2011 resulted in the death of a third year student of B. Tech. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 19,50,000/- by taking the earning capacity of the deceased as Rs. 25,000/- per month. The insurance company and the claimants both challenged the award before this Court. This Court held the earning capacity of the deceased to be Rs. 26,815/- per month by relying on the basis pay of a junior engineer and the compensation amount was enhanced from Rs. 19,50,000/- to Rs. 22,94,871/-. 13. In United India Insurance Company Limited v. Anita, the accident dated 16th June, 2009 resulted in the death of a 21 year old student of B. Tech. (Mechanical and Automation Engineering). The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 34,65,689/- by taking the earning capacity of the deceased as Rs. 26,815/- per month and 50% future prospects thereon, which was challenged by the insurance company. This Court upheld the award of the Claims Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under: "5. The Claims Tribunal took the income of the deceased as Rs. 26,851/- following the judgment of this Court in HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lalta Devi, 2015 ACJ 2526 , in which this Court took the income of a B.Tech third year student in a similar university as Rs. 26,851/- according to the salary drawn by a Junior Engineer. The learned Tribunal has also taken into consideration that the deceased had passed the 5th semester in December 2008 and had received the approval for six weeks industrial training with Indian Airlines. 26,851/- according to the salary drawn by a Junior Engineer. The learned Tribunal has also taken into consideration that the deceased had passed the 5th semester in December 2008 and had received the approval for six weeks industrial training with Indian Airlines. The Claims Tribunal also considered the mark sheets of the deceased for 3rd, 4th and 5th semester alongwith certificate of excellence for 3rd semester and deceased had stood first in the 3rd semester examination in December, 2007. The Claims Tribunal also considered the statement of PW-2 who was a class fellow of the deceased and had initially joined Maxim Group in 2011 at a monthly salary of Rs. 16,000/- as Production Engineer and thereafter, another company with a package of Rs. 4,34,000/- per annum with 18% increment in the salary. 6. This Court is of the view that the income of the deceased computed by the Claims Tribunal and the future prospects added thereon are fair and reasonable and does not warrant any interference." 23. Finally, while computing the compensation Midha, J. referred to the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, (2011) 17 SCC 481, vide para No. 16 thus: 16. There is no merit in the contention of the insurance company that the compensation be computed by taking the minimum wages of Rs. 11,414/- per month as the income of the deceased. The law is well-settled that it is not mandatory to resort to minimum wages to compute the compensation in each and every case. Reference is made to Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (supra), in which 59 persons died in 1997 and the Supreme Court granted compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the victims above 20 years of age by taking their income as Rs. 8,333/- per month whereas the minimum wages at the relevant time were less than Rs. 2600/- per month. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under: "38. ... It can be by way of making monetary amounts for the wrong done or by way of exemplary damages, exclusive of any amount recoverable in a civil action based on tortuous liability. 2600/- per month. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under: "38. ... It can be by way of making monetary amounts for the wrong done or by way of exemplary damages, exclusive of any amount recoverable in a civil action based on tortuous liability. But in such a case it is improper to assume admittedly without any basis, that every person who visits a cinema theatre and purchases a balcony ticket should be of a high income group person. In the year 1997, Rs. 15,000 per month was rather a high income. The movie was a new movie with patriotic undertones. It is known that zealous movie goers, even from low income groups, would not mind purchasing a balcony ticket to enjoy the film on the first day itself. To make a sweeping assumption that every person who purchased a balcony class ticket in 1997 should have had a monthly income of Rs. 15,000 and on that basis apply high multiplier of 15 to determine the compensation at a uniform rate of Rs. 18 lakhs in the case of persons above the age of 20 years and Rs. 15 lakhs for persons below that age, as a public law remedy, may not be proper. While awarding compensation to a large group of persons, by way of public law remedy, it will be unsafe to use a high income as the determinative factor. The reliance upon Neelabati Behera ( AIR 1993 SC 1960 :1993 AIR SCW 2366) in this behalf is of no assistance as that case related to a single individual and there was specific evidence available in regard to the income. Therefore, the proper course would be to award a uniform amount keeping in view the principles relating to award of compensation in public law remedy cases reserving liberty to the legal heirs of deceased victims to claim additional amount wherever they were not satisfied with the amount awarded. Taking note of the facts and circumstances, the amount of compensation awarded in public law remedy cases, and the need to provide a deterrent, we are of the view that award of Rs. 10 lakhs in the case of persons aged above 20 years and Rs. 7.5 lakhs in regard to those who were 20 years or below as on the date of the incident, would be appropriate. We do not propose to disturb the award of Rs. 10 lakhs in the case of persons aged above 20 years and Rs. 7.5 lakhs in regard to those who were 20 years or below as on the date of the incident, would be appropriate. We do not propose to disturb the award of Rs. 1 lakh each in the case of injured. The amount awarded as compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of writ petition as ordered by the High Court, reserve liberty to the victims or the LRs. of the victims as the case may be to seek higher remedy wherever they are not satisfied with the compensation. Any increase shall be borne by the Licensee (theatre owner) exclusively." 24. In view of the above legal position in matters of compensation to the injured victim who virtually suffered 100% incapability to earn his livelihood and rather became a lifelong liability upon the parents, we do not find any manifest error in the award qua compensation awarded. The First Appeal From Order, accordingly, lacks merit and is rejected. 25. Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the appellant shall be remitted to the tribunal for being adjusted against the award.