As per case facts, the claimants, parents of the deceased, filed a petition seeking compensation for their son's death in a road accident. Their son, a 19-year-old bachelor studying in ... his second year of degree and also working in agriculture and milk vending, tragically passed away as a pillion rider on a motorcycle. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal determined the accident resulted from the driver's negligence and awarded compensation. The insurance company subsequently filed an appeal, contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive and calculated incorrectly. The central legal question before the High Court was whether the Tribunal's assessment of the deceased's monthly income, the percentage applied for future prospects, the choice of multiplier, and the amounts awarded for loss of consortium and interest rate were in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, particularly in the Sarla Verma case. Finally, the High Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the Tribunal's award. The Court reasoned that while the Tribunal was justified in taking a notional income, it should have applied a 20 percent deduction for the deceased being a student instead of 10 percent , leading to a corrected monthly income. It affirmed the 40 percent addition for future prospects. Crucially, the High Court determined that a multiplier of '18' was appropriate, as opposed to the '19' used by the Tribunal, in line with the Sarla Verma precedent for the deceased's age. The Court found the amounts awarded for loss of consortium to each claimant and funeral expenses to be reasonable and did not interfere with them. Additionally, it clarified the entitlement of claimants to an amount for loss of estate. The 7.5 percent per annum interest rate awarded by the Tribunal was also upheld. Through these adjustments, the High Court reduced the overall compensation payable to the claimants, making it jointly and severally liable on the respondents.