The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles for determining just compensation in motor accident cases, including the multiplier method and factors affecting the calculation of compensation.

( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30/04/1990 in FAO No. 99/90. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows: on 27/03/1984 at about 9. 15 a. m. Shri Vivek Gupta, who was riding a two wheeler was hit by a matador driven by the fourth respondent and belonging to the second and third respondents. Shri Vivek Gupta sustained serious head injuries. He succumbed to his injuries in the hospital on the sixth day of the accident. The deceased Shri Vivek Gupta at the time of the incident was only 24 years old. He was a bachelor and was the only son of his parents. He was survived by his father aged 58 years, mother 50 years old and four younger sisters. Shri Vivek Gupta was b. E. (Mechanical) and was working as a Trainee Engineer with M/s. Batliboi and Co. He was drawing a stipend of Rs. 1,300. 00 per month. On completion of the training, he would have received about Rs. 2,300. 00 per month from the company.

( 2 ) THE appellants herein, father and mother of the deceased, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs from the New India Assurance Company, the first respondent, owners - the second and the third respondents, and the driver of the offending vehicle - the fourth respondent. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found that Shri Vivek gupta died due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DEG-7290by the fourth respondent and passed an award of Rs. 72,000. 00 against the respondents. The claimants not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Motor accident Claims Tribunal by its order dated 6/11/1989, filed an appeal. But the appeal was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 30/04/1990 without giving any reasons. It is against this order that the appellants have filed the instant letters Patent Appeal.

( 3 ) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The first question to be decided is whether or not the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor accident Claims Tribunal needs to be enhanced. To answer the question it will be necessary to notice that the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 72,000. 00 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation against the respondents and in favour of the appellants. The appellants claim that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly inadequate. They have highlighted the fact that the deceased at the time of accident was 24 years of age and was drawing a stipend of Rs. 1,300. 00 from M/s. Batliboi and Co. It was submitted that on completion of the probation, which event was to take place after a very short time, the deceased would have been put in a regular scale and would have reached an income of about Rs. 5. 000. 00 per month. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants the deceased was a brilliant youngman and would have risen very high in his career.

( 4 ) THE principles on the basis of which compensation is to be worked out have been laid down in various decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. In U. P. State Road Transport Corpn. and Ors. v. Trilok Chandra and Ors. , 1 (1996) ACC 592 (SC), a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court after review of various decisions, namely, Gobald Motor Services Limited and Another v. R. M. K. Velusroami and others, AIR 1962 S. C. 1 Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd. , 1942 AC 601; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti and Others, AIR 1966 SC 1750; general Manager, Kerala State Road Transport, Trivendrum v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 (2) SCC 176; C. K. S. lyer v. T. K. Nair, AIR 1970 S. C. 376; M/s. Hirji Virji Transport and Others v. Basiranbibi, (1971) 12 Gujarat Law Reporter 783; Mallei v. Mcmonagle, 1969 (2) All England Reports 178; and taylor v. O conor, 1970 (1) All england Reports 365 evolved the principles for determining just compensation. In this regard, the Supreme