The central legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of future prospects and income in determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Om Prakash-VII, J.: -

1. The aforesaid two appeals have been filed against the judgmentward dated 4.9.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge 2, Kanpur Nagar (in short 'the Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 316 of 2002. Since these two appeals involve common questions of fact and law, therefore, the same are being decided by this common judgment. The First Appeal From Order No. 2760 of 2004 is being treated as leading case.

2. The First Appeal From Order No. 2760 of 2004 has been filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. with the prayer to set-aside the aforesaid award on the ground that the Tribunal has illegally awarded the amount in the impugned award.

3. The First Appeal From Order No. 2657 of 2004 has been preferred by the appellants in the said appeal for enhancement of the awarded amount under the impugned award whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 5,03,000/- along with 8% simple interest.

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.1.2002 at about 8.00 a.m. in front of Ghari Soap Factory on G.T. Road, P.S. Chaubeypur, District Kanpur Nagar deceased Ajay Kumar Dwivedi was going on foot extreme left hand side of the road and when he reached in front of Ghari Soap Factory on G.T. Road, one Indica Car bearing registration No. UP 78-Y/8104 coming from Bilhaur side being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, suddenly dashed Ajay Kumar Dwivedi as a result of which he sustained serious multiple fatal injuries and died on spot. First Information Report was lodged on the same day i.e. 24.1.2002 at Police Station Chaubeypur, District Kanpur Nagar.

5. The defendant/owner of the offending vehicle turned-up before the Tribunal and filed written statement denying all the facts mentioned in the claim petition. He also disputed the fact of income and occupation of the deceased mentioned in the claim petition. It was also the case of the owner that the offending vehicle was validly insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. on the date and time of the accident and the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence on the date and time of the accident.

6. The appellant-insurance company had also filed written statement denying the facts mentioned in the claim petition and also disputed the involvement of the offending vehicle in the said accident.

7. The Tribunal for deciding the matter framed following four issues in Hindi, which have been transcribed in English as under:

Issue No. 1 was as to whether on 24.1.2002 at about 8.00 a.m. in front of Ghari Soap Factory at G.T. Road, Thana Chaubeypur the driver of the Indica Car No. U.P. 78 Y-8104 driving the vehicle rashly and negligently dashed the Ajay Kumar as a result of which Ajay Kumar Dwivedi sustained serious injuries and died on the spot.

Issue No. 2 was as to whether the Indica Car No. UP 78 Y-8104 was having a valid and effective insurance at the time of the accident.

Issue No. 3 was as to whether the Driver of the Indica Car No. U.P. 78 Y-8104 was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident.

Issue No. 4 was as to whether the claimant-respondent was entitled to get any compensation.

8. In support of the claim petition the claimants filed nine papers vide list 19C which are photo copy of FIR, post-mortem, application addressed to SHO, application to SSP, Form No. 15 and papers pertaining to trade tax and also examined Smt. Kaushalya Devi as PW-1, Shyam Lal as PW-2 and Ganga Prasad as PW-3.

9. The owner/defendant filed documentary evidence viz. Registration certificate, insurance cover note and driving licence.

10. The insurance company filed investigation report prepared by the investigator of the company and certified copies of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat and letter dated 21.5.2004 through list 47-C1.

11. R.P. Shukla has been examined as DW-1.

12. The Tribunal having afforded opportunity to the parties to lead the evidence heard them a