JUDGMENT : Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, J. C.M.A. No. 1800 of 2019 is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the award dated 20.03.2018 in M.C.O.P. No. 101 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Pollachi. 2. C.M.A. No. 2314 of 2018 is filed by the claimants against the very same award dated 20.03.2018 in M.C.O.P. No. 101 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Pollachi, for enhancement of compensation. 3. Since both the appeals arise out of the same accident and award, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment. 4. The parties are referred to as per their rank in the claim petition for the sake of convenience. 5. According to the claimants, on 19.06.2009, the deceased S.Harihara Sudhan, along with his friends, were travelling in Innova 2.5G Car bearing Registration No.AP-09-BQ-0250, to participate in a marriage party. The car belong to the 4th respondent and driven by the 3rd respondent during night time on 19.06.2009. After attending the party, on 20.06.2009, at 4.00 a.m., they were proceeding towards Ohris Hotel, in Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. On reaching a place called Kaman in Road No.12, Banjara Hills, the said Innova car was driven by the 3rd respondent in a rash and negligent manner. In the curved area, the 3rd respondent could not control the car, and dashed against an Electric pole which is situated in front of Audi car show room. In the impact, the car once again dashed against Road Divider, as a result of which, the car over turned on western side of the road and came to a halt. In the accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. 6. In connection with the aforesaid accident on 19.06.2009, which resulted in the death of the deceased, the claimants filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 101 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Pollachi, claiming a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation. 7. On behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company, a counter statement has been filed before the Tribunal contending inter alia that the age, income and occupation of the deceased as stated by the respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition are required to be proved by the claimants by acceptable evidence. 7. On behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company, a counter statement has been filed before the Tribunal contending inter alia that the age, income and occupation of the deceased as stated by the respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition are required to be proved by the claimants by acceptable evidence. The Insurance Company, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 8. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent/father of the deceased examined himself as P.W.1 and one Mr. Pranavsingaar was examined as P.W.2, and Exs.P1 to P18 were marked. On the side of the appellant/Insurance Company, neither oral nor documentary evidence has been adduced. 9. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Innova Car belonging 4th respondent and directed the appellant appellant/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.20,70,100/- as compensation to the respondents 1 and 2/claimants. 10. As against the award passed by the Tribunal both these appeals are filed by the Insurance Company as well as the claimants. 11. Thiru S. Arun Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted the amount awarded by the Tribunal is extremely on the higher side. The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,70,100/- for the death of the deceased in the fatal accident without considering the oral and documentary evidence filed by the claimant. The deceased was a student pursuing Engineering College and he is a non-earning member. The Tribunal also did not take note of the fact that the employability of the deceased, even after he completes Engineering Decree is not imminent and therefore also, the fixation of the amount of Rs.19,44,000/- towards loss of dependency and awarding 50% towards future prospects are liable to be interfered with by this Court. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/claimants disputed the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ Insurance Company by stating that the claim of the parents of the deceased was Rs.50,00,000/- whereas the award was passed by the Tribunal only for Rs.20,70,000/- which is on the lower side and therefore, the claimants have filed C.M.A.No.2314 of 2018 seeking enhancement of the award amount. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 have also relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jeya Kannan and others vs. Divya Impex and others reported in 2017 (1) TN MAC 500 (DB) wherein reliance was place on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. S. Mariam Beeve 2014 ACJ 2693 and contended that for the death of a medical student, fixing a sum of Rs.30,000/- as notional income is proper. By placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions, the learned counsel for the claimants would contend that fixing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/- per month is required to be enhanced. 13. Mr. Arun Kumar, the leaned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company objected to the same by stating that the notional income was fixed by the Division Bench of this Court for a medical student, whereas the same cannot be applied to this case where the deceased pursued Engineering course. Even otherwise, the Division Bench of this Court in Jeyakannan vs. Divya Impex case only cited the earlier decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. Mariam but ultimately, fixed only a sum of Rs.18,000/- as notional monthly income. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company prayed for appropriate reduction of compensation amount. 14. We have heard the counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed. The points arise for consideration in these appeals is whether the award passed by the Tribunal is excessive, as claimed by the appellant-Insurance Company or it is liable to be enhanced as prayed for by the claimants. 15. The deceased in this case was pursuing Engineering Course. He was 21 years old at the time of accident. The deceased was not an earning member in the family. The Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.18,000/- per month as notional income and awarded compensation. 16. The objection of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is the employability of the deceased even after completion of the Engineering Decree is not imminent and therefore, fixing a sum of Rs.18,000/- per month notionally and adding 50% towards future prospectus is not warranted in this case. 17. 16. The objection of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is the employability of the deceased even after completion of the Engineering Decree is not imminent and therefore, fixing a sum of Rs.18,000/- per month notionally and adding 50% towards future prospectus is not warranted in this case. 17. In the decision of this Court in Jeyakannan vs. Divya Impex mentioned supra, one of us (R. Subbiah, J) was a party. Before the Division Bench of this Court in that case, even though it was argued that a sum of Rs.30,000/- has to be fixed towards notional income of the deceased, who was pursuing MBBS degree, it was not acceded to and only a a sum of Rs.18,000/- was fixed as notional income. We wish to observe that persons who are pursuing Medical Degree or an Engineering graduate have to be treated alike and we cannot juxtapose as to who will earn more. Life has it's own twists and challenges and predicting accurately the employability with such degree and potentiality to earn or the quantum of earning in future cannot be made with astrological precision. The employment avenues to the holder of a Engineering Degree and a Medical Professional cannot be mitigated in any manner. This is more so that in cases of this nature where the persons who pursue Medical Degree or Engineering Degree dies in road accident even before they get into employment, there cannot be any different treatment in the matter of fixation of notional income. It is needless to observe that life is not free from instability and/or insecurity for any one. There cannot be any distinction among the young brilliant student who enter the Engineering and Medical profession with the same hopes and aspirations to earn more. The avenues available to the Doctor or an Engineer may be different, but the challenges they face in their respective arena and their expectations to get lucrative employment may not be different. Therefore, an Engineering graduate will not get any income or comparing an Engineering Graduate with that of a medical student for the purpose of determination of compensation is unwarranted. In any event, as per the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Jeyakannan case mentioned supra, the fixation of notional income at Rs.18,000/- per month by the Tribunal is proper. In any event, as per the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Jeyakannan case mentioned supra, the fixation of notional income at Rs.18,000/- per month by the Tribunal is proper. As the deceased died as a bachelor, out of this amount of Rs.18,000/- 50% thereof has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, assuming the deceased get employment soon after completing his Engineering Decree, his net income after 50% deduction will be Rs.9,000/-, which may be the contribution of the deceased to his family. As per the rulings of the Pranay Sethy 40% is to be added as future prospects, if so, a sum of Rs.3,600/- has to be added to take the notional income of the deceased to Rs.12,600/-. By applying multiplier 18' the total loss of earning to the claimants due to the death of the deceased can be determined at Rs.27,21,600/- (Rs.12,600/- X 12 X 18). 18. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate. Hence, this Court award a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of estate to the claimants. 19. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation under other heads, in our opinion, are fair and reasonable and they does not warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, we modify the judgment passed by the Tribunal by enhancing the compensation amount payable to the claimants from Rs.20,70,000/- to Rs.28,87,700/- as tabulated below:- S. No. Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs) Award confirmed or enhanced or granted 1. Loss of dependency 19,44,000/- 27,21,600/- Enhanced 2. Loss of love and affection 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/- Conformed 3. Transportation 11,100/- 11,100/- Confirmed 4. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed 5. Loss of estate - 40,000/- Granted Total Rs.20,70,100/- Rs.28,87,700/- Enhanced by Rs.8,17,600/- 20. In the result, C.M.A. No. 1800 of 2019 filed by the appellant /Insurance Company is dismissed and C.M.A. No. 2314 of 2018 filed by the claimants is partly allowed and the total compensation of Rs.20,70,100/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced to Rs.28,87,700/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified award amount now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.101 of 2012. On such deposit, the respondents 1 and 2/claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire award amount in equal proportion, after adjusting the amount already withdrawn, if any. The claimants are directed to pay necessary Court fee, if any, on the enhanced compensation. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.