JUDGMENT : RAVI NATH TILHARI, J : 1. Heard Ms. A. Jayanthi, learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and perused the material on record. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act filed against the decree dated 15.07.2024 passed in MVOP No.683 of 2021 on the file of Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, Chodavaram. 3. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the claimants in MVOP No.683 of 2021 in the Court of Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge (FTC), Chodavaram. The claim was filed on account of the death of one Teppala Rajasekhar in the road accident caused by the offending lorry driven rashly and negligently by its driver, respondent No.4 herein is the driver of the lorry and respondent No.5 is the owner of the offending lorry. The deceased was pillion rider on the motorcycle. The compensation claimed was Rs.42 lakhs. The age of the deceased was 21 years and he was a student of final year B.Tech. 4. The present respondent Nos.4 and 5 remained ex parte. 5. The appellant filed counter-affidavit denying the allegations made in the MVOP and submitted that the claimants be put to strict proof of their case. The compensation claimed was said to be highly excessive. The insurance company denied its liability to pay compensation. It also pleaded that there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. 6. The Tribunal framed the following issues : 1. Whether the deceased Teppala Raja Sekhar died in motor accident occurred on 10.12.2020 at about 5.30 p.m., opposite to Baniyan Tree Cloth Shop, near Jalagalamadhumu Junction, Anakapalli, due to dash of the offending Lorry Bearing Registration No.AP 26 TT 4555 driven by the 1st respondent in rash and negligent manner? 2. Whether was the age of the deceased Teppala Raja Sekhar and his income? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled compensation, if so, what amount against whom? 4. To what relief? 7. The parties led their respective evidence as detailed in the judgment & award of the Tribunal. 8. On Issue No.1, the Tribunal recorded the finding that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle-lorry, in which, the deceased died. On Issue No.2, the Tribunal determined the age of the deceased as 21 years on the date of the accident and his income as Rs.25,000/- per month. 8. On Issue No.1, the Tribunal recorded the finding that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle-lorry, in which, the deceased died. On Issue No.2, the Tribunal determined the age of the deceased as 21 years on the date of the accident and his income as Rs.25,000/- per month. On Issue Nos.3 & 4, in total the compensation for an amount of Rs.38,64,700/- was awarded with an interest thereon @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. The insurance company was held liable to make the payment. 9. Aggrieved by the award dated 15.07.2024, the present appeal has been filed. 10. Ms. A. Jayanthi, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the challenge is only on the point of compensation and that too with respect to the finding on the income of the deceased. She submits that the deceased was student of B.Tech. final year and was a non-earning member. Consequently, the income as assessed @ Rs.25,000/- per month is legally not justified, which is highly excessive. No other point is argued. 11. In view of the submission advanced, the following point arises for our consideration : "Whether the income of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal is highly excessive and calls for interference?" 12. We have considered the submissions and perused the material on record. 13. The Tribunal while determining the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.25,000/- per month, notionally, considered that the deceased was a B.Tech student in the final year and had also got offer of employment during his life time from M/s. Grafx IT Solutions (P) Ltd., Visakhapatnam with an annual salary package of Rs.3,00,000/-, which was filed as Ex.P12. The Tribunal relied in the judgment Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Deo Pataudi, (2009) 13 SCC 123 = 2009 (8) Scale 194 , in which the Hon'ble Apex Court determined, in the case of deceased student aged 22 years, the earning capacity as Rs.25,000/- per month. 14. Paras 10 & 11 of the Tribunal judgment are as under : "(10) Coming to the aspect of the Income of the deceased Teppala Raja Sekhar, he was studying Final Year Engineering at the time of accident and he was already selected in Campus Selections and was appointed to work in M/s. Grafx IT Solutions (P) Ltd., Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam with Annual Income of Rs.3,00,000/-. No doubt, by the date of the accident the deceased Teppala Raja Sekhar is not an earning person, but he was selected in Campus Selection and got appointment letter from M/s. Graix IT Solutions with a salary package of Rs.3,00,000/- per annum. Considering Ex.P12 his annual income has to be fixed notionally. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the citation reported in Babli Dixit and another v. Satendra Kumar and others (Iffco Tokio General Insurance) of Delhi High Court, decided on 14th December, 2018. This Court has carefully gone through the said citation. In the said citation several Supreme Court judgments were referred. Taking into consideration, the said citation, the income of deceased Teppala Raja Sekhar can be fixed by referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred in said citation. The law in fixing notional income is well settled by catena of judgments. The minimum wages are permissible to be taken where the deceased is illiterate and does not possess any professional or technical qualification. Where the deceased is educated or is pursuing the professional course, income has to be taken on the basis of his earning. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Deo Pataudi, 2009 (13) SCC 123 = 2009 (8) Scale 194 , in which case the deceased aged 22 years was a student having a brilliant career and offer of employment from a US Based Company at the time of accident. The learned Tribunal took his earning capacity to be Rs.18,000/- per month. The High Court in appeal upheld the earning capacity of the deceased at Rs.18,000/- per month. The Hon'ble Supreme Court enhanced the earning capacity of the deceased from Rs.18,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month. (11) Now coming to the instant case with reference to the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the deceased Teppala Raja Sekhar got offer of employment during his life time from M/s. Gratx IT Solutions (P) Ltd., Visakhapatnam with an annual salary package of Rs.3,00,000/-. Deceased was a final year student of B.Tech. In DIET Engineering College, Anakapalli by the date of accident. So, his income is to be notionally fixed at Rs.25,000/- per month, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2009 (8) Scale 194 , in between Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Deo Pataudi (supra). Deceased was a final year student of B.Tech. In DIET Engineering College, Anakapalli by the date of accident. So, his income is to be notionally fixed at Rs.25,000/- per month, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2009 (8) Scale 194 , in between Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Deo Pataudi (supra). Accordingly, this issue is answered by holding that the age of the deceased Teppala Raja Sekhar by the date of accident was 21 Years 01 Month 13 Days by fixing his notional income @ Rs.25,000/- per month." 15. In Deo Pataudi's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under : "11. It is in the aforementioned situation, we are of the opinion that the fair amount of compensation should have been calculated at Rs.25,000/- per month being about one-third of the amount which he was receiving in the U.K." 16. Learned Counsel for the appellant could not dispute Ex.P12. 17. We do not find any illegality in the order/award of the Tribunal. No case for interference is made out. 18. The motor accident civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. 19. Let the awarded amount with interest & cost be deposited by the appellant within a period of two (02) months from today, before the Tribunal. 20. On such deposit being made the Tribunal shall proceed to disburse the same to the claimants as per the award. 21. No order as to costs in this appeal. 22. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.