IMPORTANT POINT
The court applied legal principles from previous judgments to uphold the assessment of the deceased's income and modify the multiplier for calculating the loss of dependency.

JUDGMENT

Anish Dayal, J.

1. The present appeals have been filed both by the Insurance Company and the parents of the deceased respectively assailing judgement dated 14th September, 2012 ("impugned judgement") passed by the Ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ("Ld. MACT"). While the Insurance Company has restricted its challenge to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- being considered as the income of the deceased in the calculation of compensation payable, the parents of the deceased seek enhancement of the compensation awarded vide the impugned judgement.

Factual Background

2. On 15th October, 2006 the daughter of the appellant-parents, Ms. Shobha Tripathi, suffered injuries in an accident and subsequently succumbed to them. At about 1:00 p.m. on that day, she along with her friend Nischal Sharma had gone to DDA park to have lunch after attending classes for Masters of Computer Application ("MCA") at Laxman Public School, New Delhi. Ms. Shobha had, on completion of her graduation in 2005, enrolled for 3 years' MCA course. She had successfully completed one year and was in her second year. At about 1:30 p.m. they came out of the park and Nischal Sharma started his motorcycle which he had parked on the left side of the road near the gate of the park and both sat on the said motorcycle. When they were about to proceed towards Laxman Public School to attend the remaining class, a Santro Car bearing No. DL 3C AP 4792, driven by respondent No. 1 in MAC APP 112/2013, Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, sped from the direction of Hauz Khas and hit the motorcycle from behind. Due to the impact, they both were thrown on the road, the car dashed into the pavement and stopped. Both of them were taken to Safdurjung Hospital. Ms. Shobha could not survive and resultantly, died at about 10:30 pm in All India Institute of Medical Sciences on the same day. Nischal Sharma sustained a fracture in his right thigh. A case was registered vide FIR No. 652/2006 at Police Station Hauz Khas, Delhi.

Findings of the Ld. MACT

3. After assessing the evidence on record, Ld. MACT found that the factum of the accident was proved and that the injuries sustained by both Shobha and Nischal Sharma were caused by the negligent driving of the Santro Car by one Mr. Prabhat Ranjan. The Santro car was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. As regards compensation, the Ld. MACT noted that the deceased, Ms. Shobha was 26 years of age, was a brilliant student, a had graduated from Indira Gandhi National Open University ("IGNOU") in 2004, and from 1997 to 2001, had attended various courses in commercial painting, dress making, and dress designing. She also held a diploma in internet program and was pursuing MCA from IGNOU. At the time of the accident, she was working with M/s. Ritika Shipping Lines Pvt. Ltd. ("M/s Ritika") as a front desk-cum-computer operator earning a monthly salary of Rs. 9,000/-. As per the statement of PW-1, Sh. A. K. Tripathi, the father of the deceased, it was assessed that after completion of MCA, she would have secured a proper job in a multinational company on a possible salary package of Rs. 6 lakh per annum.

4. As per the statement of PW-2, Sh. Ugranath Jha, the accountant of M/s. Ritika, who had brought service record of the deceased, it was stated that the deceased had worked for the company from 1st April, 2006 to 14th October, 2006. He stated in his examination that the deceased was pursuing MCA while in service and, had she continued in service with M/s. Ritika, her salary would have been Rs. 50,000/- per month.

5. On the basis of these testimonies, Ld. MACT calculated the loss of dependency at Rs. 15,000/- per month, deducted 50% from it as personal and living expenses [on the assumption that as a single unmarried person, she would spend more on herself, in line with principles enunciated in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121]. The multiplier used was on the basis of the age of her mother (dependent/beneficiary) who w