The court ruled that non-dependents can only claim for loss to the estate instead of loss of dependency, modifying compensation accordingly.

1. This is an appeal directed against the judgment and award dated 22.08.2015, by the Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., being the insurer of Vehicle No. MH - 04P - 5806, which is involved in the accident.

2. Before dealing with the grounds agitated in this appeal, it is necessary to elucidate the brief facts of the case. The claimant - parents have filed a claim application under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, the Act) due to the death of their son Ritabrata @ Ritabhrata Saha (hereinafter referred to as Ritabrata) in a road traffic accident. There is no dispute in regard to the involvement of the vehicle No. MH - 04P - 5806 which was driving at a very high speed, rashly and negligently and dashed the motor bike bearing registration No. MH - 12 - FQ - 9747 which was ridden by a friend Sachin Shivpuran Thapa maintaining a very slow speed. Ritabrata was sitting behind the rider of the motor bike and when the truck bearing No. MH - 04P - 5806 dashed the bike, Ritabrata fell down from the bike and died on the spot. A police case was registered in Pan Police Station under S.304(A) / 279/338 of IPC against the driver of the said truck. At the time of death Ritabrata was aged about 22 years and was a brilliant student of B.E. 3rd year in the Bharati Vidyapeeth (Engineering College) at Katraj, Pune. It was claimed that Ritabrata if survived, he would have earned at least Rs.60,000/- per month and as such the parents claimed a compensation for Rs.1,42,60,000/-.

3. The owner of the vehicle as well as the Insurance Company had contested the suit by filing their respective written statements and also laid evidence during the course of the proceedings.

4. The Tribunal has framed two issues which are reproduced below; -

1. Did Ritabrata Saha alias Rita Bharata Saha sustain any injury on 26.06.2011 at about 4.45 a.m. on the Mumbai Goa National High Way near Pangaon Boundary, in front of the Hotel Pushpak, under Pan Police Station, District Roygarth, State Maharastra in a road traffic accident involving the Motor Bike bearing Registration No. MH - 12 - FQ - 9747 and the truck bearing Registration No. MH - 04P - 5806 due to rash and negligent driving of either or both the vehicles resulting in his death the same day?

2. Are the claimants entitled to be compensated under the provision of M.V.Act 1988? If so, to what extent and who shall be liable to pay the same?

5. While deciding the Issue No.1, the learned Tribunal held that Ritabrata died due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle No. MH - 04P - 5806 and the said issue is decided in favour of the claimant - parents.

6. While deciding the Issue No.2, the learned Tribunal has considered the loss of earning capacity of Ritabrata at Rs.20,000/- per month on completion of probation period. From the said income, the learned Tribunal had deducted Rs.200/- against professional tax. So, the monthly income has come to Rs.19,792/-. Adding 50% of the monthly income towards future prospects, the monthly income has been decided Rs.29,688 (Rs.19,792+Rs.9,896). At this rate, annual income comes to Rs. 3,56,256/-. The learned Tribunal as per Para 11 of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vrs. DTC, 2009 (6) SCC 121 which is further reiterated in Shyamwati Sharma & Ors v. Karam Singh & Ors. (2010 AIR SCW 4391) before taking the amount into consideration, applicable income tax has been deducted from the amount. Considering the income tax slab