( 1 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel on both sides in these two appeals.

( 2 ) CERTAIN arguments of consequence have been advanced by both the learned Counsel, which would have bearing on several other similar situation having regard to the modality of driving and the injuries occurring in the student community and consequently, it is necessary for us to record our findings with regard to the submissions canvassed. Both the deceased were students who were riding on a motor cycle on 8. 2. 1989 at about 7 p. m. near Nanthoor which is on the outskirts of Mangalore city, incidentally on the national Highway by-pass. As a result of the recklessness on the part of another motor cyclist who brushed against this motor cycle, the two boys who ware 3rd year BDS students were thrown off the vehicle, landed on the road and were immediately run over by a speeding truck. They died instantaneously and the claim petitions have been presented by their parents.

( 3 ) THE principal contention raised before that Tribunal was two fold: the first being that the parents had virtually over-reached themselves in finding requisite funds for the purpose of educating the sons particularly through professional college and that the potential of the young boys was such that they would have taken up their professional avocations shortly after having completed their studies in the normal expectation they would have done well for themselves. The implied argument is that having virtually exhausted their resources and even taken loans that the parents would have legitimately expected total support from the sons in the years to come and that consequently, the dependency aspect is not only real but genuine. The Tribunal has done a notional assessment and come to the conclusion that it would be safe to fix a figure of rs. 2400/- per month as the base figure for the purpose of doing computation and the only tenable argument that the appellants' learned Counsel has advanced before us is that even if the Court were to take judicial notice of all the relevant factors, the figure is too low and it requires to be scaled up. What is pointed out to us is that the students were in the 3rd year BDS; that in the normal' circumstances they would have completed their studies within the next two years and even assuming there was some short gestation period that they would have certainly started earning and as is the normal case in the profession, that their earning would not have been anything less than at least Rs. 5 to 6 thousand per month. The submission canvassed that even if the earlier period were to be excluded that the earning potential would rise very shortly and consequently, even if the Court were to average out the figure, Rs. 2400/- per month, that it was unduly low and the learned Advocate has submitted that the base figure of Rs. 5000/- would be every realistic and correct.

( 4 ) THE respondents' learned Counsel has pointed out to us that the Tribunal itself has committed and error while doing the computation in so far as 50% deduction would have to be applied whereas only 1/3rd has been deducted, that the appellants have consequently benefited substantially particularly since the insurance companies have not filed any appeal and in this view of the matter his submission is that this additional amount itself should be treated as adequate enhancement and that there is no ground made out for any variation. We have taken due note of the fact that the deduction ought to have been 50% and that an error has been committed, but we have given due credit to the respondents for this even though they have not filed any appeal because we have borne in mind what we need to once again reiterate that while the sympathies are always pleaded on the side of the injured or the deceased that the Court would not be justified in bending over backward and being extra liberal to the claimants at the expense of the nationalised insurance companies because a responsible app