The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider the future income and prospects of the deceased, especially in technical fields, in assessing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short 'the Act') for enhancement of the sum awarded by the Vth MACT, Morena in Claim Case No. 31/04 vide award dated 12-8-2005 whereby their claim with respect of vehicular death of Tarun aged 22 years the son of appellant No. 1 and 2 while brother of appellant Nos. 3 and 4, has been awarded against the respondents for the sum of Rs. 2,43,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition if the payment is made within two months and if the payment is made beyond this period then @ 9% per annum. The liability to pay such sum is saddled jointly and severally against both the respondents.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the appellants herein filed the claim petition in the aforesaid tribunal contending that on 19-8-2003 at about 12 O' clock in the night, the aforesaid Tarun Agarwal, aged 22 years while riding his Yamaha motorcycle MH-14-T/1057 reached in front of the gate of Court compound, Pune. At the same time from the side of Kamguar statute a PMT bus bearing Registration No. MH-12-AR/7942 driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, came and dashed his motorcycle from the front side, resultantly, he fell down. The pillion rider Sandeep (AW-2) also fell down. In such incident, Tarun Agarwal sustained fatal injuries on his head and subsequently succumbed to such injuries. As per further averments such bus was registered with the RTO in the name of respondent No. 2 while respondent No. 1 was driving the same under the employment of respondent No. 2. On receiving the report, a criminal case was registered at the concerning police station. After holding the investigation, respondent No. 1 was charge-sheeted for the offence of section 304- A of the Penal Code. In addition it is stated that deceased Tarun, at the time of accident, was prosecuting his studies of Engineering in Computer Science and was the student of III year at Pune and very soon after completing such degree, he would have got the job in some higher package in lakhs. In his education, huge amount was spent by his parents and due to his untimely death, they have not only suffered the mental agony but have also been deprived from the benefit of future income of the deceased so also the love and affection of the deceased. With these averments, under different heads, the impugned claim was filed by the appellants for the sum of Rs. 76,25,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum.

3. Respondent No. 1 in spite service of the notice did not appear before the tribunal, hence the case was proceeded ex parte against him.

4. In reply of respondent No. 2, it is stated that the claim petition has been filed contrary to Rules 220 and 221 of the M. P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994. It is further stated that along with the claim petition no papers regarding qualification or the education of the deceased have been placed or sent to such respondents. It is also stated that the appellants No. 3 and 4, being brother and sister of the deceased, were not dependent on him. Besides this, the deceased was not earning member of the family so the appellants have not been deprived from any right of dependency. In further averments it is stated that the aforesaid motorcycle was driven by the deceased in a rash and negligent manner and that was the only cause for the accident and, in such premises, the deceased himself was responsible for the alleged accident and there was no negligence on the part of the bus of the respondents or its driver. In alternate, it is pleaded that, in any case, it was the case of contributory negligence because both the vehicles have been collided from front side. The claim is filed by assessing the sum on excessive side for which the appellants are not entitled and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. In view of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, issues were framed, on wh