Judgment:-

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted. What should be the appropriate multiplier as also the multiplicand in a case where a student having a brilliant career and had an offer of employment from a U.S. based Company is the question involved in these appeals. They arise out of the following factual matrix. Deepak Patodi was 22 years of age on 12.6.2003 when the accident took place. He was the only son of the claimants. The accident took place when he was going to Bhopal along with his friends in a Tata Indica Car. He was immediately taken to "Chirayu Hospital" at Bhopal and thereafter shifted to `Bhandari Hospital in Indore. On 18.6.2003, he succumbed to the head injury suffered by him in the said incident.

3. His parents filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") on or about 24.12.2003 inter alia claiming a sum of Rs.75 lakhs as compensation on the premise that while he was doing his Business Administration Course in U.K. he was also doing a part-time job with World Bank on a monthly salary of Rs.80,000/- (UK # 1008.31) and he was offered an employment in the capacity of EU Controller in GOA LLC, a company registered in USA at an annual remuneration of Rs.18 lakhs per annum approx. ($41,600/-) Indisputably, he did not accept the said offer. He intended to pursue his higher studies in MBA at Central Queensland University in Australia.

4. The learned Tribunal opined that keeping in view his capability he would have been employed on a monthly salary of Rs.18,000/-per month. 2/3rd was deducted from the said amount for working out the loss of dependency of the claimants at 1/3 rd. The multiplier of 13 was applied keeping in view the age of the claimants. An amount of Rs.9,36,000/- by way of compensation was awarded by the Tribunal. A sum of Rs.2000/- was also granted towards funeral expenses.

5. The claimants preferred an appeal thereagainst in the High Court which was registered as M.A. No. 1842 of 2005. Enhancement in the amount of compensation was claimed inter alia on the premise that the dependency of the parents should have been taken into consideration at 2/3rd of the income of the deceased and furthermore the expenses incurred during treatment should have also been awarded. The insurance company filed cross objections in the said appeal in terms of Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the income of the deceased could not be taken at Rs.18,000/-per month in the absence of any cogent evidence and that the claimants were not dependents on the deceased.

6. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High court while maintaining the estimated income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/-per month on a notional basis opined that the dependency of the claimants should have been taken at 2/3rd of the income of the deceased. The High court also noticed that although the Tribunal had found that claimants must have spent a sum of Rs.2 lakhs towards treatment of the deceased, but no compensation on that head was awarded by it. The High Court, thus, awarded a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- towards the medical expenses. Applying the multiplier of 13, the loss of dependency was calculated at Rs.18,72,000/-. A sum of Rs.25,000/- was also granted towards the funeral expenses. Both the insurance company as also the claimants are before us.

7. Mr. M.K. Dua, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company would contend that the deceased being a bachelor and for all intent and purport being a dependant on his parents and as he intended to pursue his higher studies in Australia, the Tribunal had rightly calculated the loss of dependency of parents at 1/3rd of his income and not 2/3rd.

8. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants, on the other hand, would contend that the learned Tribunal could not have estimated the income of the deceased only at Rs.18,000/-per month keeping in view the background as also the salary he had obtained even