The court considered the deceased's potential earnings, career prospects, and applied a multiplier of 12 to determine the compensation, emphasizing the need to minimize damages while considering the ground realities.

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.

1. The appellants are the unfortunate parents who suffered an irreparable loss in the death of their young son Dr. Vikrant Gupta. He was 23 years old and had just graduated in Medicine and Surgery. He was undergoing internship. He met his end in a lorry accident. The death was instantaneous. The appellants filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The tribunal has assessed and awarded a total amount of Rs.2,70,000. The appellants complain that compensation is too meagre. Hence this appeal.

2. The facts may be briefly noticed. On the night intervening 21/22.4.1995, vikrant Gupta was travelling to Pondi-cherry in the lorry No. TCG 2400. Near chengalpattu, the lorry hit a stationary truck No. PY-01-0477 which was parked on the wrong side of the road without any light or indication. Vikrant Gupta sustained multiple injuries and died. His postmortem was performed at the Medical college, Chengalpattu. An FIR Exh. P-5 was also recorded.

3. The father of the deceased was at chandigarh. He had retired as Professor and Head of the Department of Radiotherapy, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, in the year 1994. On 22.4.1995, he was to leave for Mangolia. His ticket was already booked. However, on receipt of the telegram, he had flown to Madras and then reached Chengalpattu. He got the body embalmed. It was carried to Delhi by air and then to Chandigarh in an ambulance. The last rites were performed at Chandigarh.

4. The deceased had a brilliant academic record. He had joined the MBBS course at the Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and research, Pondicherry in July, 1990. This admission was granted to him as a result of the selection conducted by the Central board of Secondary Education. He had completed the four and a half years course and was doing internship from January, 1995. During the period of internship, he was being paid a stipend of Rs.2,000 per month. The accident ended a promising career.

5. The deceased had other interests as well. He had passed the Grade V examination in Classical Guitar from the London school of Music. He had ambitious plans of performing concerts apart from following the medical profession.

6. Appellants claim that the deceased had the potential of earning a minimum of rs.50,000 per month. On this basis, a compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000 along with interest at 18 per cent was claimed.

7. In the petition, the owners and drivers of the two vehicles and the insurers, viz. , oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and United india Insurance Co. Ltd. were impleaded as parties. The two companies appeared. Others did not. Resultantly, respondent nos.1 to 4 and 7 were proceeded against ex parte.

8. In the written statement filed by oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , it was averred that no cause of action had accrued. The respondent No.1 was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of the alleged accident. She had no insurable interest and that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. On merits, the basic plea was that the claimants be put to proof, similar was the reply filed on behalf of United India insurance Co. Ltd. , respondent No.6.

9. On the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed the following three issues: (1) Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent Nos.2 and 4? opp (2) If issue No.1 is proved to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled and from whom? OPP (3) Relief. On issue No.1, the Tribunal found that the accident had occurred "due to rash and negligent acts of respondent Nos.2 and 4". On the quantum of compensation, the tribunal took the view that after completion of the internship, the salary of the deceased could be Rs.3,000, /3rd was deducted on account of personal expenses. Thus, taking the contribution at Rs.2,000 per month, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 10 and assessed the compensation of