The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to compensation based on the deceased's potential salary and future prospects, as determined by the principles set out in Sarla Verma's case.

Revati Mohite Dere, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable with the consent of the parties forthwith and is taken up for final hearing.

2. The appellant - insurance company (Original opponent No. 2) has taken exception to the Judgment and Award dated 9th May, 2014, passed by the Learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Islampur, Sangli, by which the respondent – claimants were granted compensation of Rs.49,02,216/- with Interest @ of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.

3. The appellant is the Insurance Company of the vehicle, which was involved in the accident, in which the deceased – Ujwala died. Respondent No.1 is the husband of the deceased, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of the deceased ; Respondent No.4 is the owner of the vehicle, in which the deceased was traveling when it met with an accident ; and Respondent No.5 was the driver of the said vehicle. The impugned Award has been challenged by the appellant – company essentially on two counts, viz., (i) that the issue of negligence has not been properly considered by the Tribunal and (ii) that the future prospects ought not to have been granted to the respondent – claimants, as the deceased was not permanently employed in any Government post/organization/PSUs, but was serving in an unaided private college.

4. The respondent – claimants supported the Award and contended that no interference was warranted in the same.

5. Before we deal with the rival submissions advanced by the parties, it will be necessary to set out the factual matrix of the case and the evidence adduced by the respondent – claimants, in support of the Claim Petition.

On 3rd January, 2009, Ujwala Sunil Garud (deceased) was proceeding from Mumbai to Islampur, after attending a meeting. She was travelling in a Mahindra Scorpio Vehicle, bearing No.MH-10-AG-1515. When the vehicle came on the Pune-Mumbai Road near Ravet Fata, the driver of the said vehicle lost control over the vehicle, as he was driving the vehicle at high speed, resulting in the vehicle turning turtle. As a result of the accident, Ujwala sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. The driver of the vehicle is stated to have driven the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the accident. Pursuant to the accident, an FIR came to be registered as against the respondent no.5 i.e. the driver of the vehicle, which was registered vide C.R.No.6 of 2009 with the Dehu Road Police Station, for the alleged offences punishable under Section 279, 304A, 337 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a Claim Petition in 2009, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and sought compensation of Rs.85,00,000/- Respondent nos.4 and 5 (Original Opponent Nos.1 and 3) contested the claim and filed their written statements (Exhibit – 22). They questioned the age and income of the deceased and denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.5 – driver. According to the Respondent nos.4 and 5, the respondent no.5 had a valid licence at the time of the accident and had driven the vehicle cautiously with due care and caution. They did not dispute the ownership and insurance of the vehicle.

6. The appellant – insurance company (Original opponent no.2) contested the claim by filing a written statement, which is at Exhibit – 17 and questioned the age and income of the deceased and the manner in which the accident occurred. They denied that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently and that the deceased suffered grievous injuries in the accident. They appellant – insurance company contended that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were not dependent on the deceased and had their own independent income.

7. The respondent – claimants in support of their claim petition examined the first respondent i.e. Sunil Parsharam Garud ; Prashant Prabhakar Mokashi, a Cle