JUDGMENT : (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT) (1) The present appeal is filed by the appellant - Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the M.V. Act"), against the judgment and award dated 28.02.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) & 4th Additional District Court, Jamnagar, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 299 of 2015. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original positions. Brief Facts of the Case (2) The brief facts of the case are as follows:- 2.1 That on the fateful day, i.e., 07.06.2015, at about 11:00 PM, the deceased - Dr. Vaibhav Suresh Chandra Jain was travelling in Wagon-R car bearing registration number DL-9-CX-3712 which was dashed by truck bearing registration No.UP-93-T-9567, whereby, the car got completely burnt and the deceased - Dr. Vaibhav Jain sustained injuries and succumbed to it. 2.2 The original claimants (the widow of late Dr. Vaibhav and his parents) filed the claim petition and later on, after the death of widow of Dr. Vaibhav i.e., claimant No.1, her mother - Santosh Dhanendra Jain was substituted as claimant no.4. The claim petition was filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,00,000/- for the death of Dr. Vaibhav, which according to the claimants arising out of use of motor vehicle from the owner and insurance company of the truck and Wagon R car. 2.3 The appellant - herein is the original opponent no. 2, the insurer of the truck, whereas respondent no.6 herein is the original opponent no. 4 - Insurer of Wagon R car. 2.4 The deceased - Vaibhav was a doctor, who, after completing his graduation in medicine (MBBS), was pursuing higher studies i.e. Senior Student in Surgery. At relevant point of time, he was a senior student in surgery and was under residentship in R.N.T. Medical College at Udaipur, drawing a monthly stipend of Rs.48,094/-. 2.5 As per the case of the claimants, the deceased was brilliant in his studies. During his resident-ship of M.S. (Surgery), he was preparing to appear in the examination for M.C.H. (Urology) for super specialty. While going to appear in the examination of S.G.P.G.I., Lucknow for M.C.H. (Urology), unfortunately, he met with the accident in question and died untimely. 2.6 It is further the case of the complainant that deceased - Dr. During his resident-ship of M.S. (Surgery), he was preparing to appear in the examination for M.C.H. (Urology) for super specialty. While going to appear in the examination of S.G.P.G.I., Lucknow for M.C.H. (Urology), unfortunately, he met with the accident in question and died untimely. 2.6 It is further the case of the complainant that deceased - Dr. Vaibhav was aged about 32 years, a promising doctor and earning Rs.80,000/ per month at the time of the accident, and on completion of his study, he would have easily earned a much higher amount than what he was earning at the time of the accident. Considering the potential earning capacity of the deceased and having lost a husband and son, the claimants have filed an application for compensation of Rs.1,50,00,000/- from the opponents. The claimant, the widow of Dr. Vaibhav, was examined as Exh.44. It has emerged from the cross-examination of the claimant No.1 that at the time of the accident, she was pursuing her studies in the second year of Master of Medicine (MD) and earning a monthly stipend of Rs.28,000/ to Rs. 30,000/. She has admitted that in order to pursue further studies, the deceased took leave from his job at R.N.T. Medical College, Udaipur on January, 2015, and was staying with her at Jamnagar to appear in MCH, super specialty examination. She has candidly admitted that at the time of the accident, her husband did not receive any salary as he was on leave since January, 2015. It also emerged from her cross-examination that on the date of her cross-examination, i.e. 21st February, 2018, she was working as a senior resident doctor in a Delhi government hospital and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.1,10,000/. The necessary certificates and educational certificates of her husband are produced on record. 2.7 The opponents have appeared through their respective advocates and filed their written statements, except for opponent no. 3, who chooses not to appear and has not filed any written statement. None of the opponents have rebutted evidence led by the claimants so far as educational qualification and income of deceased by tendering any oral and or documentary evidence. 2.7 The opponents have appeared through their respective advocates and filed their written statements, except for opponent no. 3, who chooses not to appear and has not filed any written statement. None of the opponents have rebutted evidence led by the claimants so far as educational qualification and income of deceased by tendering any oral and or documentary evidence. 2.8 After appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal has found sole negligence of the driver of the truck for causing the accident, thereby held only opponent nos.1 and 2 liable to pay compensation, whereby exonerated opponent nos.3 and 4 from their liability to pay compensation. 2.9 The Tribunal has, after appreciating the evidence, so far as the income of the deceased is concerned, found that he was a resident doctor in R.N.T Medical College at Udaipur, being a senior student in surgery and also pursuing his higher studies and was going to appear in the M.C.H. (Urology) examination. He was getting a monthly stipend of Rs.48,094/-, which is supported by the stipend sheet of the year 2015 and the income tax return for the assessment year 2015-16 produced at Exh. 54 and 91 respectively. It has believed and considered the income of the deceased @ Rs.48,094/-, being the monthly stipend amount issued to the deceased lastly in November, 2014. The Tribunal has followed the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranav Sethi and Others reported in 2017 AIR (SC) 5157 and awarded to the claimants a sum of Rs.92,34,048/- under head of loss of dependency and further awarded the claimant a sum of Rs.84,000/- under different conventional heads, in all, awarding Rs.93,18,048/- to the claimants with 9% interest from the date of the claim petition till realization. 2.10 The opponent No.2 - Insurer of the truck who is liable to pay the entire compensation, has challenged the impugned judgment and award on various grounds, but during the course of oral arguments at time of admission of the appeal, the learned advocate of the appellant – Insurance Company had restricted the grounds of appeal confined to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2.11 The learned advocate appearing for the appellant insurance company has also made available the necessary documentary and oral evidence submitted by claimants to decide the present appeal. 2.11 The learned advocate appearing for the appellant insurance company has also made available the necessary documentary and oral evidence submitted by claimants to decide the present appeal. So, this Court has not called for the record and proceedings from the Tribunal. 2.12 The learned advocate, Mr. Nitin Amin, appearing for the original claimants, requested the Court to decide the appeal based of evidence so submitted by the learned advocate of the appellant to this Court. He has further declared to this Court that, on instructions from his clients, the original claimants are neither interested in filing any separate appeal nor desired to get higher compensation than what was awarded by the Tribunal by filing any cross-objection. Nonetheless, he has requested this Court to consider his submission that the income which has been considered by the Tribunal is not an adequate one. But considering the principle of just compensation, this Court may decide the issue between the parties. 2.13 With the consent of the learned advocates for both sides, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. The presence of other respondents is not necessary for the final adjudication of the present appeal as the issue of quantum of compensation to be decided by this Court only requires the presence of the claimants, who are duly represented by learned advocate Mr.Nitin Amin. Submission of the Appellant (Insurance Company-Opponent No.2) (3) Learned advocate for the Appellant-original opponent no.2, Mr.Rathin Raval, has vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has committed a gross error by taking into account the monthly stipend of Rs.48,094/- being income of deceased while computing compensation. He would submit that deceased used to receive such income much prior to the day of the accident. He has drawn our attention to the evidence of the claimant no.1. In her crossexamination, she has admitted that at the time of the accident, her husband was not getting any salary. He would further submit that at the time of the accident, the deceased was neither employed nor earning any salary, then the Tribunal could not have considered a monthly stipend of Rs.48,094/ as the income of the deceased. (4) According to him, considering the minimum wages, which was prevailing at the time of the accident in the year, 2015, the Tribunal was required to consider the income of the deceased on a guesswork basis. (4) According to him, considering the minimum wages, which was prevailing at the time of the accident in the year, 2015, the Tribunal was required to consider the income of the deceased on a guesswork basis. As per his submission, consideration of such income by tribunal is nothing but a bonanza to the claimants needs interference by this court. (5) Mr. Raval, the learned advocate for the appellant, further submitted that when the deceased was not employed and assuming without admitting for the time being that he was a resident doctor being a senior student in surgery doing his resident-ship in R.N.T Medical College at Udaipur getting a monthly stipend, then also the Tribunal required to have considered 40% of the future prospective rise of income instead of 50%, as the deceased was not in permanent employment. In support of this submission, he would rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Pranav Sethi and others (supra). (6) Lastly, he would submit that claimant No.1 died during pendency of the claim petition on 13.03.2021, then only the parents of the deceased (i.e., claimants No.2 and 3) are surviving claimants awarded compensation by the Tribunal, then the personal expenses of deceased ought to have been deducted 1/2 and instead of 1/3 as parents are claimants. (7) Thus, he would submit that the Tribunal has committed a serious error while granting compensation to the claimants, which requires interference by this Court, and requested this Court to grant just compensation to the Claimants. Submission of the Respondent/s (8) Per contra, the learned advocate, Mr. Nitin Amin, appearing for the original claimants, would submit that it remains undisputed before the Tribunal that the deceased - Dr.Vaibhav, was a qualified doctor, and after completion of his graduation in medicine, he was perusing higher studies in M.S. (Surgery). He was a senior student in surgery and was undergoing resident-ship in R.N.T. Medical College at Udaipur. He would submit that deceased was getting monthly stipend of Rs.48,094/- by doing his resident-ship and he was also preparing for higher study and to appear in M.C.H. (Urology), a super specialty examination. He was a senior student in surgery and was undergoing resident-ship in R.N.T. Medical College at Udaipur. He would submit that deceased was getting monthly stipend of Rs.48,094/- by doing his resident-ship and he was also preparing for higher study and to appear in M.C.H. (Urology), a super specialty examination. He would submit that considering the educational qualification being a qualified doctor, a senior medical student pursuing higher study, aged about 32 years, naturally had the potential to earn a much higher income than what was assessed by the Tribunal by taking into account only a stipend income of the deceased and not taken his potentiality to earn as Specialist Doctor. (9) He would further submit that as on today, the resident doctor in any Medical College would easily earn more than Rs.1,00,000/- and after completing super specialty when such doctor enters into practice, the earning of such a qualified doctor in India, if not gone abroad, would surely earn not less than Rs.2,00,000/- per month. (10) He would then submit that while considering the income of the deceased, who was a qualified doctor, pursuing higher studies in a branch of medicine when the learned Tribunal has only considered his stipend income, ignoring his potentiality to earn much higher income, there is no error committed by the Tribunal in considering 50% future prospective income of the deceased instead of 40% as submitted by learned advocate for the appellant insurance company. He would submit that the Court is required to grant just compensation by considering the potentiality of earning of the deceased. He would respectfully submit that if germane from the record/evidence, there is no bar to consider a higher percentage of future prospects than the normal rule. (11) At this stage, he would submit that it has come out from the cross-examination of claimant No.1 - widow of the deceased – Dr.Vaibhav, that at time of her cross-examination in year 2018, just after 3 years from year of the accident, she was getting a monthly salary of Rs.1,10,000/- while serving in Delhi government hospital as a senior resident doctor, which is self-sufficient to support the case of the claimants that the future prospective income of the deceased was much higher than what he was earning, albeit Tribunal has considered only 50% which is conservative. (12) Lastly, he would submit that at the time of the accident, the deceased was a married person, who left behind a widow and parents then, no error has been committed by the Tribunal by deducting 1/3rd personal expense of the deceased. He would submit that it is unfortunate that the widow of the deceased, who was also a qualified doctor, died during the pendency of the claim petition, but the position of the claimants at the time of the institution of the claim petition requires to be considered by the Court while applying the deduction of personal expenses of the deceased. (13) Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. No other and further submissions have been made by the respective advocates appearing for the parties. Points of determination (14) The point for determination are as follows. (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal committed any error in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.48,094/- p.m. on the basis of the monthly stipend received by the deceased - Dr. Vaibhav? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal committed any error by considering 50% future prospective rise in the income of the deceased - Dr. Vaibhav instead of 40%? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed any error in deducting only 1/3rd personal expense of the deceased instead of 1/2? (iv) Whether the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation to the Claimants? Appreciation and evaluation of Submissions - Findings (15) This Court has minutely gone through the impugned judgment and award as well as documentary evidence submitted by the appellant touching the aspect of the income of the deceased - Dr. Vaibhav. It remains undisputed before the Tribunal that the deceased was in Resident-ship in R.N.T Medical College at Udaipur. He was getting a monthly stipend of Rs.48,094/- till 20.01.2015 as he had taken leave to pursue his M.C.H. (Urology) - a super specialty examination at S.G.P.G.I., Lucknow. It is also an undisputed fact that after completing his graduation in Medicine (M.B.B.S), the deceased was pursuing his higher studies. He was a senior student in Surgery and was serving as a resident doctor in R.N.T. Medical College at Udaipur. It is also an undisputed fact that after completing his graduation in Medicine (M.B.B.S), the deceased was pursuing his higher studies. He was a senior student in Surgery and was serving as a resident doctor in R.N.T. Medical College at Udaipur. It is true that at the time of the accident, he was not getting any monthly stipend of Rs.48,094/- as observed earlier part of this judgement as he was preparing to appear in the M.C.H. (Urology) - super specialty examination at Lucknow. While going to attend the examination, he met with an accident and ultimately died due to severe injuries. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Dr. Vaibhav, not only had a degree of graduation in medicine but was a student of surgery pursuing his masters and was preparing to appear in a super specialty examination and therefore, had to take leave from his Medical College, i.e. leave without pay. It is an unfathomable that Dr. Vaibhav, though qualified but not actually earning at the time of the accident (not getting a monthly stipend), the minimum wages prevailing on the date of the accident requires to be taken into account while assessing the monthly income of the deceased. Such an argument on the part of the insurance company is deplorable would show a total insensitive approach towards road accident victims and run counters to the object of the MV Act to grant just compensation in favor of claimants who lost their beloved one and bread earner. The provisions of the "M.V. Act" gives paramount importance to the concept of 'just and fair' compensation. It is a beneficial legislation, which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the M.V. Act deals with the concept of 'just compensation' which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equability. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the applicant/s. (16) At this stage, this Court would like to refer to few decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India laying down the law in the field of granting just compensation and how to ascertain and draw the income of a road accident victim who is a qualified person like Dr. Vaibhav but not actually earning. Vaibhav but not actually earning. (17) In a case of M.R. Krishna Murthi vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Others, reported in 2020 (15) SCC 493 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as under:- [17] We now proceed to discuss the merits of the aforesaid two proposition advanced before us. (I) Assessment of Compensation: Admittedly, the appellant was a student studying in a school. He was not doing any job or was in any vocation and, thus, was not earning anything. The loss of future earning is to be assessed on the aforesaid basis. Before adverting to the arguments that are raised by Mr. Arun Mohan and taken note of above, it would be appropriate to scan through certain judgments cited before us by both the parties in order to decipher the principles for determining loss of future earning in such circumstances. First case which we would like to refer is the judgment in the case of Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2010 10 SCC 254 . In that case also, the appellant who was a victim of accident, was a student. He was in the final year of engineering which he was doing from a reputed college. He had a brilliant academic record, having passed all semester examinations with distinction. In the accident that took place, the appellant suffered multiple injuries which led to 70% permanent disability. This disability rendered him incapacitated which had the consequence of dashing forever his dream of becoming Mechanical Engineer, studies for which career he had undertaken. On the aforesaid facts, his future earning were assessed at Rs.60,000/- per annum by taking salary and allowances payable to Assistant Engineer in public employment. This future earning was discounted at 30% on the basis of which multiplicand was taken at Rs.42,000/- per annum. Going by his age which was 25 years at the time of accident, multiplier of 18 was applied and on that basis, compensation towards loss of future earning was assessed at Rs.7,56,0000/-. Second case to which reference is made is Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Deo Patodi & Ors., 2009 13 SCC 123 . Here, the victim was a brilliant student and while a student, he was also earning Rs.80,000/- per month in a job on part-time basis in the United Kingdom. Second case to which reference is made is Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Deo Patodi & Ors., 2009 13 SCC 123 . Here, the victim was a brilliant student and while a student, he was also earning Rs.80,000/- per month in a job on part-time basis in the United Kingdom. He had not accepted a job offered by a US based company at a salary of Rs.18 lakhs per annum. However, at the time of accident, he was not working. Accident took place on June 12, 2003 when he was 22 years of age. He suffered head injuries which proved fatal and he died within six days i.e. on June 18, 2003. While computing the compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' (he was the only son of the claimant), the Tribunal as well as the High Court held that the deceased would have earned only Rs.18,000/- per month. This Court, in appeal, however, considered the aforesaid estimation of income to be on lower side and the Court decided to fix the earning at Rs.25,000/- per month, which was 1/3rd of the amount that he was receiving in the United Kingdom. The relevant discussion in this behalf runs as under: "8. The question in regard to the calculation of loss of dependency, it is trite,would vary from case to case. The fact that the deceased was a brilliant student is not in dispute. He had graduated in Business Administration in the UK. Even as a student, in a job on a part-time basis he was being paid a salary of Rs 80,000 per month (UK 1008.31). He paid his income tax even in the UK. After his graduation, he came back to India. He was offered a job as EU Controller by GOA LLC, a company based in Chicago, USA at an annual salary of Rs 18 lakhs (i.e. $41,600). However, when the accident took place he was not working; having not accepted the said offer. He was still a student. It would have been hazardous for the Tribunal to calculate the amount of compensation towards the loss of dependency on that basis. 9. The Tribunal and the High Court, however, in our opinion, keeping in view the aforementioned backdrop might not be correct in holding that he would have earned only Rs 18,000 per month. He was still a student. It would have been hazardous for the Tribunal to calculate the amount of compensation towards the loss of dependency on that basis. 9. The Tribunal and the High Court, however, in our opinion, keeping in view the aforementioned backdrop might not be correct in holding that he would have earned only Rs 18,000 per month. It is true that the cost of living in the western countries would be higher. The standard of living in the western countries cannot be followed; in the absence of any material placed before this Court it should not be followed in India. Even in a case where the victim of an accident was earning salary in US dollars, this Court opined that a lower multiplier should be applied. 10. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan, 2002 6 SCC 281 this Court held: (SCC pp. 294-95, paras 19-20) "19. In the present case we find that the parents of the deceased were 69/73 years. Two daughters were aged 17 and 19 years. The main question, which strikes us in this case is that in the given circumstances the amount of multiplicand also assumes relevance. The total amount of dependency as found by the learned Single Judge and also rightly upheld by the Division Bench comes to 2,26,297 dollars. Applying multiplier of 10, the amount with interest and the conversion rate of Rs 47, comes to Rs 10.38 crores and with multiplier of 13 at the conversion rate of Rs 30 the amount comes to Rs 16.12 crores with interest. These amounts are huge indeed. Looking to the Indian economy, fiscal and financial situation, the amount is certainly a fabulous amount though in the background of American conditions it may not be so. Therefore, where there is so much of disparity in the economic conditions and affluence of the two places viz. the place to which the victim belongs and the place where the compensation is to be paid, a golden balance must be struck somewhere, to arrive at a reasonable and fair mesne. Looking by the Indian standards they may not be much too overcompensated and similarly not very much under compensated as well, in the background of the country where most of the dependent beneficiaries reside. Looking by the Indian standards they may not be much too overcompensated and similarly not very much under compensated as well, in the background of the country where most of the dependent beneficiaries reside. Two of the dependants, namely, parents aged 69/73 years live in India, but four of them are in the United States. Shri Soli J. Sorabjee submitted that the amount of multiplicand shall surely be relevant and in case it is a high amount, a lower multiplier can appropriately be applied. We find force in this submission..… 20. The court cannot be totally oblivious to the realities. The Second Schedule while prescribing the multiplier, had maximum income of Rs 40,000 p.a. in mind, but it is considered to be a safe guide for applying the prescribed multiplier in cases of higher income also but in cases where the gap in income is so wide as in the present case income is 2,26,297 dollars, in such a situation, it cannot be said that some deviation in the multiplier would be impermissible. Therefore, a deviation from applying the multiplier as provided in the Second Schedule may have to be made in this case. Apart from factors indicated earlier the amount of multiplicand also becomes a factor to be taken into account which in this case comes to 2,26,297 dollars, that is to say an amount of around Rs 68 lakhs per annum by converting it at the rate of Rs 30. By Indian standards it is certainly a high amount. Therefore, for the purposes of fair compensation, a lesser multiplier can be applied to a heavy amount of multiplicand." The said decision, however, to some extent was clarified by this Court in Punjab National Bank v. Indian Bank, 2003 6 SCC 79 . 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 onethird of the amount which he was receiving in the UK." [18] We may also take note of one judgment of High Court of Delhi in MAC. APP. No. 135 of 2008 titled 'New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ganga Devi & Ors.' decided on November 23, 2009. In that case also, accident resulted in death of the victim, named, Dr. Brij Mohan. APP. No. 135 of 2008 titled 'New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ganga Devi & Ors.' decided on November 23, 2009. In that case also, accident resulted in death of the victim, named, Dr. Brij Mohan. He was 24 years of age at the time of accdent and had completed his MBBS. He was doing one year internship and was getting stipend of Rs.5,000/- per month. The deceased had cleared the UPSC examination for the post of Medical Officer and was scheduled to be appointed as Medical Officer after completing the internship. Evidence of PW-2, Senior Assistant of the Hospital, where the deceased was interning, was produced who deposed that after completing his internship, there was a possibility of getting absorbed as Junior Resident Doctor in the same hospital at salary of Rs.18,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month. [19] The Tribunal took the view that the aforesaid evidence was insufficient to prove the income. Accordingly, it took the minimum wages of a graduate worker as Rs.3,543/- per month and added 50% towards inflation and rise in price index. From this, 1/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses and multiplier of 11 was applied to compute the loss of dependency at Rs.9,35,352/-. The High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal holding that evidence of PW-2 was believable. On that basis, income was taken at Rs.18,000/- per month to which 50% was added towards future prospects, following the judgment of this Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 6 Scale 129 . Deduction towards personal expenses was made on which multiplier of 13 was applied. [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 commensurating 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. 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 commensurating 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 tosuccessfully 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 parttime 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….” (18) What is deduced and culled out from the aforesaid principle by the Hon’ble apex Court in the case of M.R. Krishna Murthy (supra) that even if 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. Likewise, 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. (19) It is apposite and profitable to refer and rely upon a decision in the case of Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi V/S Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma & Anr reported in 2015 (2) SCC 180 , wherein it has been held:- “[9] We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In our considered view, the deceased was 19 years old and was pursuing his medical degree with good marks at the time of the accident. With respect to the future income of students pursuing professional courses we refer to Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., 2010 10 SCC 254 ], wherein this Court held as under:- "14. On completion of Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) from the prestigious institute like B.I.T., 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 any evidence in support thereof, there would not have been any difficulty for him in 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 for 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 factors 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 ." [10] The Tribunal and the High Court have not taken into proper consideration that the deceased was a student of medicine at the time of the accident while determining his future income. The courts below have wrongly ascertained the future income of the deceased at only Rs.18,000/- per month, which in our view is too less for a medical graduate these days. The courts below have wrongly ascertained the future income of the deceased at only Rs.18,000/- per month, which in our view is too less for a medical graduate these days. Therefore, the courts below have failed in following the principles laid down by this Court in this aspect in the above case. The deceased was a diligent and outstanding student of medicine who could have pursued his M.D. after his graduation and reached greater heights. Today, medical practice is one of the most sought after and rewarding professions. With the tremendous increase in demand for medical professionals, their salaries are also on the rise. Therefore, we have no doubt in ascertaining the future income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- p.m. i.e. Rs.3,00,000/- p.a. Further, deducting 1/3rd of the annual income towards personal expenses as per Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deo Patodi and Ors, 2009 13 SCC 123 ], and applying the appropriate multiplier of 13, keeping in mind the age of the parent of the deceased, as per the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma case, we arrive at a total loss of dependency at Rs.26,00,000/-[(Rs.3,00,000/- minus 1/3 X Rs.3,00,000/-)X 13].” (20) It is required to be noted here that in the aforesaid decision of Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi (supra), the date of the accident was 12-07-2002 and the deceased-victim was a student of MBBS at the time of the accident and not earning anything. Nonetheless, the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered his potentiality of earning income @ Rs.25,000/ per month. (21) So, keeping in mind the aforesaid principles and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which is to be followed in the facts of the present case, this court requires to adjudicate points of determination. (22) The deceased - Dr. Vaibhav had already completed his graduation in medicine and was a senior student in surgery and also a resident doctor, who had taken leave to pursue further study to appear in the M.C.H. (Urology) - super specialty examination at the time of the accident. Considering his age, i.e., 32 years, and the year of the accident, 2015, by no stretch of imagination, a prudent mind would describe with an assessment of his income to Rs.48,094/-, being his monthly stipend, which was used to receive by the deceased prior to the accident. Considering his age, i.e., 32 years, and the year of the accident, 2015, by no stretch of imagination, a prudent mind would describe with an assessment of his income to Rs.48,094/-, being his monthly stipend, which was used to receive by the deceased prior to the accident. According to this Court, the Tribunal has considered only the monthly stipend of the deceased while computing the income of the deceased, who was qualified a doctor, and not at all considered other several factors, i.e., higher qualification and his potentiality to earn much higher income in future, had he not met with an accident etc. Even otherwise, it has come on record, in cross-examination of claimant no.1 that she was drawing a salary of Rs. 1,10,000/ by serving as resident doctor in Delhi Government Hospital just after about 3 years from the accident. This fact would be one of the indicating factor on which the Court can judge potentiality of earning of a specialist doctor, who is not in private practice. Otherwise, earning of supper specialist doing private practice in India would definitely earn much higher income than what was assessed by the Tribunal. (23) Thus, we are not at all impressed by the arguments of the learned advocate appearing for the appellant - insurance company that the Tribunal has committed any error while assessing the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.48,094/-. This argument runs contrary to the evidence on record and hence, requires to be turned down at threshold. As such, this Court would have deliberated further on the aspect of potentiality of deceased to earn a higher income than what has been considered by the Tribunal, but when claimants have shown their disinclination to get higher compensation than what was awarded by the Tribunal, we are not stating anything more on the issue, albeit, it would not be unfair not to grant just compensation to the claimants. (24) So far as the second limb of the argument of the learned advocate for the appellant insurance company is concerned, as to whether the Tribunal has committed a serious error by considering 50% future perspective rise in the income of the deceased instead of 40% as he was not in permanent employment?. (24) So far as the second limb of the argument of the learned advocate for the appellant insurance company is concerned, as to whether the Tribunal has committed a serious error by considering 50% future perspective rise in the income of the deceased instead of 40% as he was not in permanent employment?. (25) We have already referred to and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court of India, thereby, it is clear in our mind that the potentiality of earning capacity of any qualified doctor like the deceased unfortunately died at the age of 32 years, which is an untimely death of any professional, who can earn much more amount than assessed by the Tribunal, then keeping in mind the aforesaid factor, there is no serious error committed by the Tribunal while considering 50% future prospective income of the deceased - Dr. Vaibhav. (26) It is now a well-settled position of law that in a case where evidence, which is on record shows potentiality much better prospects to earn higher income, then it is no bar to grant future prospective higher than 40%, as the case may be. True, ordinarily as a rule of thumb, future prospective rise of income of deceased/injured claimant requires to be considered as per decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in a case of Pranav Shethi (supra). Nevertheless, considering following subsequent decisions of Apex Court, in exceptional circumstances and in a case of overwhelming evidence on record suggesting to the Court to take higher percentage of future rise than available then its no bar to consider and grant such higher percentage of future rise of income. According to our opinion, having so discussed herein above, present case falls under such exceptional case. (27) It is apt to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sureshchandra Bagmal Doshi & Another versus New India Assurance Company Limited & Ors reported in 2018 AIR (SC) 2088, wherein, it has been held that:- “[6] The High Court declined to accept the future income rise as 100 per cent and took the same as 50 per cent in view of the judgment of this Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 2009 6 SCC 121 The High Court, considering that the claimants were the parents of the deceased, deducted 50 per cent towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd of the amount, as per the Tribunal. In fact, a reading of the order shows that these were the only two pleas advanced on behalf of the insurance company on which the appeal of the insurance company succeeded. [11] We have the benefit of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., 2017 AIR(SC) 5157 . While examining the observations in Sarla Verma, the Constitution Bench gave its imprimatur to the addition of 50 per cent to actual salary of the deceased towards future prospects where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, as in the present case. However, learned counsel for the appellant has brought to our notice a recent order passed by this Court in SLP (C) No.22134/2016 and other connected matters dated 22.11.2017 wherein while taking note of the views expressed by National Insurance Company Limited, it has been observed that the percentage for calculating future rise in income is no bar to future prospects being taken at a higher level where the assessment is based on actual evidence led to the satisfaction of the Tribunal/the Court that the future prospects were higher than the standard percentage. Learned counsel, thus, submitted in the context of the evidence led in the present case that the two certificates dated 16.10.1998 and 8.7.2005 were proved in terms whereof the deceased's future prospects would have entitled her to a gross salary in the range of Rs.14,000 to Rs. 17,000 per month. No doubt the second certificate is dated 8.7.2005, after a lapse of 7 years from the first certificate, but then that would be a more realistic estimate of what a person holding that post would be earning at that stage of time. There is no rebuttal evidence led by the insurance company and we see no reason to doubt these certificates. Thus, the assessment of the Tribunal is based on the evidence led in the present case. There is no rebuttal evidence led by the insurance company and we see no reason to doubt these certificates. Thus, the assessment of the Tribunal is based on the evidence led in the present case. As noticed above, the standardized percentage is capable of being varied if the evidence is so led.” (28) In another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the case of Hem Raj versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others reported in 2018 (3) ACC 42, it has been held as under:- “SLP (C) No. 8306 of 2017: (29) This special leave petition is disposed of in terms of the principle laid down in the order passed in SLP (C) No. 26263 of 2016 to the extent applicable to the present case. CA No. 19605 of 2017 arising out of SLP (C) No. 37617 of 2016: [30] Leave granted. [31] Heard learned counsel for the parties. [32] It is submitted that the view taken by this court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), is no bar to future prospects being taken at level higher than 25 per cent in case the deceased above 40 years or 50 per cent in case the deceased was below 40 years if the evidence on record so warrants. It is submitted that standardisation may be the increase (sic) based on presumption but when there is an actual evidence led to the satisfaction of the Tribunal/court that future prospects was higher than the standard percentage, there is no bar to the court/ Tribunal awarding higher compensation on that basis. [33] We find merit in the submission. [34] In the present case, the Tribunal has applied the correct principle of law and made the assessment of income by adding the component of future prospects higher than the standard percentage. The High Court held that the Tribunal could not have gone beyond the standard percentage. To that extent, the view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained.” (29) It is also required to bear in mind that in the case of Sarla Verma And Ors V/S Delhi Transport Corporation And Anr reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 , wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court while defining the standard percentage of increase observed that a departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. The relevant observations are as under:- “[11] In Susamma Thomas, this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit, the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax ]. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.” (30) Thus, considering the aforesaid three decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India, wherein also the decision of Pravav Sethin (supra) was taken note of, higher future prospect than a standard percentage was considered and accepted as there was evidence on record so warrant. At the cost of repetition, we would like to state that considering the potentiality of earning of deceased - Dr. Vaibhav and keeping in mind his qualification, his future prospect is surely much higher than 40% as suggested by learned advocate for the appellant - Insurance company. (31) So, considering the aforesaid facts, evidence, decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court of India on such point as well as considering the prospects of the deceased aged 32 years being qualified doctor pursuing masters, a departure can be taken by considering at least 50% rise of the income than ordinary available rise of income. Thus, we do not find any infirmity on the part of the Tribunal while considering 50% future prospect of deceased. Thus, we do not find any infirmity on the part of the Tribunal while considering 50% future prospect of deceased. (32) Coming to the last limb of submission of the learned advocate for the appellant - insurance company about the personal deduction of the deceased, we would like to observe that at the time of the accident, the deceased was married, aged about only 32 years, survived by a widow and parents. Then, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), no error has been committed by the Tribunal while deducting 1/3rd personal expenses of the deceased. It is unfortunate that the claimant no.1, being the widow of Dr. Vaibhav, who filed the claim petition, died in the year, 2021, after about 6 years from filing the claim petition and unable to get fruits of compensation. Surely due to such reason, the personal expense of the deceased, who was otherwise married at the time of the accident, would not change. In any case, the tort feasor cannot take advantage of the subsequent events that have taken place in the status of the claimants. If the claim petition could have been decided earlier than she died, such argument would not have been available to the insurance company. Even otherwise, the right of parties to get compensation requires to be considered as per position of the claimants at the time of the accident and to some extent, at the time of the institution of the claim petition as the case may be. (33) It is apposite to refer to decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kirti & Anr Etc versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, reported in 2021 (2) SCC 66, it has been held as under:- “[10] We have thoughtfully considered the rival submissions. It cannot be disputed that at the time of death, there in fact were four dependents of the deceased and not three. The subsequent death of the deceased's dependent mother ought not to be a reason for reduction of motor accident compensation. Claims and legal liabilities crystallise at the time of the accident itself, and changes post thereto ought not to ordinarily affect pending proceedings. The subsequent death of the deceased's dependent mother ought not to be a reason for reduction of motor accident compensation. Claims and legal liabilities crystallise at the time of the accident itself, and changes post thereto ought not to ordinarily affect pending proceedings. Just like how appellant-claimants cannot rely upon subsequent increases in minimum wages, the respondent-insurer too cannot seek benefit of the subsequent death of a dependent during the pendency of legal proceedings. Similarly, any concession in law made in this regard by either counsel would not bind the parties, as it is legally settled that advocates cannot throw-away legal rights or enter into arrangements contrary to law. [Director of Elementary Education v. Pramod Kumar Sahoo, 2019 10 SCC 674 , 11.]” (34) Thus, the argument of the learned advocate for the appellant - insurance company defies logic being meritless. It is not acceptable as contended that the Tribunal was required to deduct 1/2 of the personal expenses of the deceased as his widow died during the pendency of the claim petition and surviving claimants being Parents. According to this Court, considering aforesaid decision and discussion, the Tribunal has not committed any error in deducting 1/3rd as a personal expense of the deceased who was married at the time of accident. (35) We would like to observe here that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding only Rs.84,000/ under different conventional heads. While awarding compensation under conventional heads, the Tribunal has committed error by completely ignoring the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanu Ram & Ors., reported in 2018(18) SCC 130 and United India Assurance Company Limited versus Satinder Kaur reported in 2021 (11) SCC 780 . As per said decisions, the claimants, i.e., the widow and parents of the deceased, would be entitled to receive consortium i.e. spousal & filial consortium respectively @ Rs.48,400/ each as well as Rs.18,150/ each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. As the claimants are satisfied with the compensation which is awarded by the Tribunal, this Court in such peculiar facts and circumstances of the case would not like to modify the award of compensation by granting any amount higher than the award passed by Tribunal under conventional heads. As the claimants are satisfied with the compensation which is awarded by the Tribunal, this Court in such peculiar facts and circumstances of the case would not like to modify the award of compensation by granting any amount higher than the award passed by Tribunal under conventional heads. (36) Thus, the upshot of the said discussion, our observations, reasons and findings set out hereinabove while answering each points raised in the appeal, we do not find any error in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. According to our opinion, the Tribunal has granted just and reasonable compensation. We accordingly answered the points of determination. Conclusion (37) In view of the aforesaid discussion, observations, reasons and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in aforesaid referred cases, this Court is of the opinion that there is no error committed by the Tribunal while assessing the income of deceased - Dr. Vaibhav, as well as considering 50% future prospective rise of his income and so deducting 1/3 personal expenses of deceased, whereby awarded just and reasonable compensation as per MV Act. (38) This Court would not like to interfere with the impugned judgment and award of compensation as it is just compensation which at least requires to be paid to the Claimants i.e. Claimants no.2 and 3 being parents of deceased - Dr. Vaibhav. (39) The present appeal is meritless and this Court would not like to entertain it by disturbing the well-reasoned judgment of the Tribunal granting just and adequate compensation in favour of the parents of the deceased Dr. Vaibhav. (40) The appeal deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. Hence, the present appeal is DISMISSED. No order as to costs. (41) Since both the parents of the deceased are senior citizens who have fought for about 9 years to get compensation after the death of their son, it is expected that the appellant insurance company will deposit the entire compensation, along with costs and interest, before the Tribunal within a reasonable time to avoid the filing of any execution application by such senior citizens. (42) Once, such compensation is deposited by the appellant - insurance company, the Tribunal shall disburse and invest the amount in favor of the parents of the deceased - Dr. Vaibhav as per para 11 and 12 of the operative portion of the impugned judgment.