The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation in fatal accidents under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly the determination of notional income, future prospects, and loss of income.

1. The above appeal has been filed by the appellants / M/s.Patel K.N.R., (VR), NH 46, Package 3, (K.R.1) Camp and National Insurance Company Limited, against the award and decree dated 28.09.2004 made in M.C.O.P.No.341 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.2), Krishnagiri.

2. The short facts of the case are as follows:

On 12.10.2003 at around 11.30 a.m., the deceased Thenmozhi and her mother, the first petitioner in the claim petition were standing at the B.D.O. bus stop on the Krishnagiri to Bargur National Highways Road and at that time the first respondent's vehicle, a Mahendra Jeep bearing Registration No.TN 29 P 7212 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly dashed against the petitioner and her daughter besides a few others. Immediately, both were taken to the hospital. The deceased initially had undergone treatment at the Government Hospital at Krishnagiri, thereafter, she had undergone treatment at St.John's Hospital and Rajashekar Hospital, Bangalore. But subsequently succumbed to her injuries as the treatment proved ineffective. Hence, the parents of the deceased have filed a claim petition against the respondents and claiming a compensation a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- with interest.

3. The second respondent / National Insurance Company Limited had filed a counter statement and opposed the claim petition. The respondent stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was not in possession of valid driving license and permit. Actually, the driver of the jeep had driven the vehicle in a slow and cautious manner, but the deceased and the petitioner had suddenly crossed the road and invited the accident, as such the deceased had attributed the negligence. The respondent denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased.

4. The first respondent had also filed a counter statement and denied the accident which was committed by the driver of the jeep. Actually, the petitioner and the deceased had suddenly crossed the road and in so doing invited the accident. At the time of the accident, the Insurance policy was in effect for the said vehicle.

5. In the said accident two claim petitions have been filed. M.C.O.P.No.341 of 2004 filed by the parents of the deceased. M.C.O.P.No.342 of 2004 filed by the petitioner, who is the first claimant in M.C.O.P.No.341 of 2004. Therefore, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had framed common issues for consideration. Against the plea of both parties for the O.P.No.341 of 2004, the following issues were framed:-

“(i) Who is responsible for the accident?

(ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation? “

6. On the side of the claimants two witnesses were examined, namely, PW1-first claimant, PW2-Dr.Ashok Kumar and 10 documents were marked, namely, Ex.P1-First Information Report, Ex.P2-Postmortem report, Ex.P3-Medical Billls. Ex.P4-Transfer Certificate, Ex.P5-Hindi Course Certificate, Ex.P6-copy of the Insurance Policy, Ex.P7-Wound Certificate, Ex.P8-Discharge Summary, Ex.P9-Medical Bills, Ex.P10-Disability Certificate. On the side of the respondent no witness was examined and no document was marked.

7. PW1 had adduced evidence that on 12.10.2003 at around 11.30 a.m., she and her daughter were waiting for the bus at the B.D.O. bus stop, at that point of time the driver of the jeep had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against them. Her daughter succumbed to her injuries, while she had sustained grievous injuries. Her daughter was taken to the Government Hospital at Krishnagiri and thereafter she was taken to the private hospital in Bangalore, but, she subsequently expired. Before the accident, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month, though her teaching profession besides through tuitions.

8. After considering the evidence of the witnesses, the Insurance Co., had awarded a sum of Rs.5,39,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per