1. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 18.11.2005, passed in M.V.C. No. 1835 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore ('the Tribunal' for short) for enhancement of compensation on the ground that the compensation of Rs. 4,65,000 along with 7 per cent interest awarded in favour of the claimants - appellants as against their claim for Rs. 1,00,00,000 is inadequate, particularly, so far as the compensation awarded towards loss of dependency is concerned.

2. The claimants - appellants are parents of the deceased son Sujay Krishna. He was aged about 21 years as on the date of the accident and was a B.E. graduate in Mechanical Engineering. That on the most unfortunate date, i.e., on 27.11.2001, at about 7.55 hours, the deceased was a pillion rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No. KA 02 - W 2209 being driven by his friend and was proceeding towards Engineers Study Circle at Sabari Complex, Residency Road. When they reached the B.R.V. Junction, on seeing the red signal, the rider, Pradeep stopped the motor cycle. But, when the red signal was still on, a BMTC Pushpak bus came from behind and dashed against the standing motor cycle in which the deceased was a pillion rider. On account of the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and later on succumbed to the same.

3. On account of death of the deceased as a result of the grievous injuries sustained in the accident, the appellants herein, being his parents filed the claim petition before Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000 against the respondent Corporation. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 18.11.2005. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 4,65,000 with interest at 7 per cent per annum from the date of petition till its deposit in the Tribunal. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are in appeal before this court, seeking enhancement of compensation.

4. We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent Corporation for considerable length of time.

5. The principal submission canvassed by learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants is that the deceased Sujay Krishna was a graduate in Mechanical Engineering with high distinction throughout and had also cleared the entrance test for IGNIIT for admission to join the elite club of IGNIIT. To substantiate the said submission, he has produced the certificate issued by the NIIT. Relying on the said certificate, he submitted that as per the opinion of the NIIT, if the deceased had procured the Engineering Degree Certificate with distinction, he would have been placed in one of the top Indian IT companies for professional practice and would have got a stipend of Rs. 8,000 to Rs. 10,000 and after the probationary period, would have earned a place in one of the reputed IT companies with salary of Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 20,000 per month. Therefore, he submitted that this aspect of the matter has not been looked into nor considered nor appreciated by the Tribunal and without assigning any cogent reasons, has proceeded to take the monthly income of the deceased only at Rs. 6,000. Therefore, the compensation of Rs. 3,96,000 awarded for loss of dependency, taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000 per month is highly inadequate and needs considerable enhancement. Further, he submitted that the Tribunal was also not right in deducting half of the income towards the personable expenses of the deceased in the light of the latest judgment of Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deo Patodi, 2009 ACJ 2359 (SC), wherein it is held that deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses is the ordinary rule in India. Therefore, he veh