N.V. RAMANA, J.

1. This M.A.C.M.A. is directed against the award dated 7.7.2005, passed by the learned First Additional District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Mahabubnagar (for short 'the Tribunal') in O.P. No. 246 of 2001.

2. The appellants are the claimants. They filed the O.P. u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- for the death of their son, Setty Audithya, in a motor accident that occurred on 6.3.2001 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing registration No. AP 22-U 268. The said auto is owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with the respondent No. 2.

3. The respondent No. 1 has remained ex parte. The respondent No. 2 insurance company filed counter denying the allegations regarding the accident and quantum of compensation claimed.

4. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the appellants, the appellant No. 1 himself was examined as PW 1 and also examined PW 2, apart from marking Exhs. Al to A21. On behalf of the respondent No. 2, insurance company, none were examined, but Exh. B1, certificate of insurance, was marked.

5. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the material placed on record, while holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto, resulting in the death of the deceased, granted a sum of Rs. 4,85,000/- as compensation under various heads. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the appellants-claimants filed this M.A.C.M.A.

6. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is twofold. Firstly, he contended that the deceased was studying Engineering III year and as such, Tribunal ought to have taken at least Rs. 7,000/- p.m. as earning capacity of the deceased. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this court in the case of B. Ramulamma v. Venkatesh Bus Union, 2011 ACJ 1702 (AP). Secondly, he contended that the Tribunal, having recorded a finding that the appellants produced evidence that they had spent more than Rs. 2,80,000/-, committed an error in awarding only Rs. 1,60,000/- under the head medical expenses.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, insurance company, contended that as against the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in B. Ramulamma, 2011 ACJ 1702 (AP), SLP is preferred by the insurance company, and as such, the ratio laid down therein should not be taken into consideration while determining the income of the deceased. He further contended that as the deceased was studying B. Tech III year, the family background and income of his parents have to be taken into consideration while awarding compensation. In support of his argument that when parents are the claimants, the age of the deceased is not relevant and it is the age of the claimants which would determine the multiplier to be adopted, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Lalnipuii, (2006) 10 SCR 1087 Supp In support of his argument that application of relevant multiplier depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, he relied on the judgment of Delhi High Court in Jyoti Kaul and Others Vs. State of M.P. and Another, (2002) 6 SCC 306 Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 the learned counsel contended that while arriving at the contribution of the deceased to the family, 50 per cent of his earnings should be deducted towards his personal expenses. He submitted that while determining the quantum of compensation, no decision can be taken to be of binding precedent and that each case has to be dealt with on its own facts, and in support of this argument, he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, 2001 ACJ 1719 (SC). In support of his argument that dependency has to be worked out