JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral). - Instant appeal is preferred against the award dated 28.06.2011 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 156 of 2010 "Subhash Arora and another vs. Pradeep Kumar Garg and others" (for short "the claim petition"), by which the claim petition preferred by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") for compensation arising out of a motor accident has been allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar (for short "the Tribunal") and respondent nos. 1 and 2 have been awarded a total compensation of Rs. 8,02,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Two Thousand only). The appellant has been directed to make payment of the award within a period of one month from the date of the award along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. 2. The claim petition was filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 before the Tribunal on the ground that on 07.09.2010 their son Umang Arora was coming to Roorkee from his college in a Vikram/Tempo bearing Registration No. UK-08T.A.-0461 (for short "the first vehicle"). At about 01:30-02:00 PM near Ibrahimpur turn G.T. Road, a truck bearing Registration No. U.K.-08-C.A-1594 (for short "the offending vehicle") came from opposite direction, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, hit the first vehicle in which Umang Arora was travelling, due to which, the first vehicle was damaged. Umang Arora sustained serious injuries. The driver of the first vehicle died at the spot and other passengers were also injured. Umang Arora was taken to the hospital, but he succumbed to the injuries. 3. It is the case of respondent nos. 1 and 2 that Umang Arora was a very brilliant student and was studying second year MBA Programme in the Institute of Management Studies, Roorkee. Family has many expectations from him. 4. Objections to the claim petition were filed. The Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration:- "1. Whether the accident dated 07.09.2010 at about 01:30 - 02:00 P.M. at village Ibrahimpur band, G.T. Road, under P.S. Kotwali Gangnahar, Roorkee, District Haridwar, occured when the son of the claimants Umang Arora (deceased) was coming to Roorke from his college in Tempo/Vikram bearing registrationNo. UK-08T.A.-0461 and when it reached at Ibrahimpur turn, then a truck bearing registration no. Whether the accident dated 07.09.2010 at about 01:30 - 02:00 P.M. at village Ibrahimpur band, G.T. Road, under P.S. Kotwali Gangnahar, Roorkee, District Haridwar, occured when the son of the claimants Umang Arora (deceased) was coming to Roorke from his college in Tempo/Vikram bearing registrationNo. UK-08T.A.-0461 and when it reached at Ibrahimpur turn, then a truck bearing registration no. U.K.-08-C.A-1594, which was being driven rashly and negligently on the wrong side by opposite party no. 2 Praveen Kumar hit the tempo, as a result of which, Umang Arora sustained injuries and died? 2. Whether the accident occurred due to the overloading and rash and negligent driving by the driver of Tempo (Vikram) bearing registration no. UK-08T.A.-0461, as stated by opposite party nos. 1 and 3 in their written statement? 3. Whether the claimants are entitled for any compensation? If yes, then from whom and to what extent? 4. Whether the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the driver of truck no. UK-08CA-1594 and Tempo/Vikram No. UK-08 TA-0461, as stated by opposite party no. 3 in para no. 20 of its written statement? If yes, then its effect? 5. Whether at the time of accident, the driver of Truck No. UK-08CA-1594 was not having a valid driving licence and the documents relating to the vehicle were not valid, as has been stated by opposite party no. 3 in its written statement? 6. Whether at the time of accident, the driver of Tempo/Vikram No. UK-08TA-0461 was not having a valid driving licence, as has been stated by opposite party no. 5 in its written statement?" 5. The Tribunal held that the accident was caused by the negligent and rash driving of the offending vehicle, as a result of which, Umang Arora sustained injuries and thereafter died. The Tribunal also concluded that the accident did not occur due to the overloading and rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first vehicle. Issue nos. 1 and 2 were decided accordingly. 6. The Tribunal recorded a categorical finding that the accident occurred as the offending vehicle was being driven on the wrong side and it dashed the first vehicle which was on its right side. The accident did not occur due to contributory negligence of the driver of the first vehicle. The issue no. 4 was decided accordingly. 7. On issue no. The Tribunal recorded a categorical finding that the accident occurred as the offending vehicle was being driven on the wrong side and it dashed the first vehicle which was on its right side. The accident did not occur due to contributory negligence of the driver of the first vehicle. The issue no. 4 was decided accordingly. 7. On issue no. 5, the Tribunal on the basis of the documents placed before it came to the conclusion that at the time of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid driving licence and all the papers relating to the offending vehicle were valid. The Tribunal also held that the driver of the first vehicle was having a valid driving licence and all the papers relating to the first vehicle were valid. Issue no. 6 was disposed of accordingly. 8. Having decided all the other issues, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.8,02,000/- from the appellant. Aggrieved by it, the appellant is in appeal. 9. Notices were issued to the respondents. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are being represented before this Court by Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Advocate and respondent no. 6 is being represented before this Court by Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocate. Office report shows that respondent no. 3 has been served through his son, respondent no. 4 has been served through his wife and respondent no. 5 has been served personally. Service is sufficient on the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5, but there is no representation on their behalf. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant had earlier filed an appeal against award given in a claim petition, which arose from the same accident and that AO No. 339 of 2011 (for short "First AO") has been dismissed. In First AO the question of contributory negligence was not taken but this Court, in First AO did not differ with the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the issue of contributory negligence. It is argued that the Tribunal committed an error in law while holding the monthly income of the deceased Umang Arora as Rs. 12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand only) per month. It is argued that this assessment is without any basis. 11. It is argued that the Tribunal committed an error in law while holding the monthly income of the deceased Umang Arora as Rs. 12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand only) per month. It is argued that this assessment is without any basis. 11. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the principles of law as laid down in the case of M.R. Krishna Murthi vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & others, 2019 (2) Apex Court Judgments 234 (S.C.). Specific reference has been made to paragraph no. 23 of the said judgment, which is as hereunder:-"23. From the conjoint reading of the aforesaid judgments, inter alia, following principles can be culled out which would be relevant for deciding the instant appeal: (i) In those cases where the victim of the accident is not an earning person but a student, while assessing the compensation for loss of future earning, the focus of the examination would be the career prospect and the likely earning of such a person in future. For example, where the claimant is pursuing a particular professional course, the poseer would be: what would have been his income had he joined a service commensurating with the said course. That can be the future earning. (ii) There may be cases where the victim is not, at that stage, doing any such course to get a particular job. He or she may be studying in a school. In such a case, future career would depend upon multiple factors like the family background, choice/interest of the complainant to pursue a particular career, facilities available to him/her for adopting such a career, the favourable surrounding circumstances to see which would have enabled the claimant to successfully pick up the said career etc. If the chosen field is employment, then the future earning can be taken on the basis of salary and allowances which are payable for such calling. In case, career is a particular profession, the future earning would depend on host of other factors on the basis of which chances to achieve success in such a profession can be ascertained. (iii) There may be cases like Deo Patodi where even a student, the claimant would have made earnings on part-time basis or would have received offer for a particular job. In such cases, these factors would also assume relevance. (iii) There may be cases like Deo Patodi where even a student, the claimant would have made earnings on part-time basis or would have received offer for a particular job. In such cases, these factors would also assume relevance. (iv) After ascertaining the likely earning of the victim in the aforesaid manner, the nature of injuries and disability suffered as a result thereof would be kept in mind while determining as to how much earning has been affected thereby. Here, impact of injuries on functional disability is to be seen. In case of death of victim, it would result in total loss of earning. In the case of injuries, the nature of disability becomes important. Such an exercise was undertaken in N. Manjegowda case." 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 would submit that no interference as such is warranted in the instant appeal. It is argued that the deceased was a student of Master of Business Administration of second year from a reputed Institute; he was a bright student and after completion of his studies, he would have secured a job at a very high monthly salary. It is argued that in fact there is no appeal for enhancement of the award otherwise, the award would have been enhanced. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 makes reference to the statement of PW-3 Pankaj Joshi, who was examined before the Tribunal and stated about the fact that the deceased was studying in MBA second year in the Institute of Management Studies at Roorkee. 13. Making reference to the judgment in the case of M.R. Krishna Murthi (supra), learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 would submit that in cases of students, an optimistic assessment of income is made, based on various factors, and it has been done in this case. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 referred to the observations of the Tribunal recorded at page 13 and page 14, to argue that, in fact, the assessment is based on the fact that the deceased was a student of MBA second year, and had he survived, he would have secured a good job. 14. This Court will first deal with the issue of contributory negligence. 14. This Court will first deal with the issue of contributory negligence. It is admitted that arising out of the same motor accident, another claim petition was filed by some other claimants, which was decided by the Tribunal on 25.03.2011. Against it, the appellant preferred First AO. In that First AO in paragraph 11 of the judgment, the Court recorded the ground for challenge which is as hereunder:- "11. Aggrieved, the insurance company has filed the present appeal challenging the award passed by the learned Tribunal, firstly on ground that the income tax returns of the deceased were not proved by the department and secondly, the deceased was a bachelor at the time of the incident and therefore instead of one-third, one-half of the amount was liable to be deducted towards personal expenses." 15. The First AO was dismissed by the Court on 02.08.2019. As such, the question of contributory negligence was not raised in the First AO. In the claim petition, issue no. 4 was with regard to contributory negligence. In fact, the appellant in his written statement filed in the claim petition recorded at paragraph no. 21 that the accident is solely contributed/attributed to the driver of the first vehicle. The Tribunal assessed evidence on this point. On issue no. 4, the Tribunal has categorically considered the technical inspection reports of both the vehicles involved in the accident, and also taken note of the site map, which revealed that it is the offending vehicle which moved on the wrong side and hit the first vehicle. It is a case of res ipsa loquitur also. Apart from it, PW-2 Waseem has stated as to how the accident took place and he has categorically stated that it is the offending vehicle which came extreme wrong side and hit the first vehicle. Therefore, the finding on issue no. 4 that it is the offending vehicle which hit the first vehicle by moving on the wrong side cannot be said to be not based on fact. The finding on issue no. 4 does not require any interference. 16. The next question is with regard to monthly income of the deceased Umang Arora. In the case of M.R. Krishna Murthi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken note of various judgments, which dealt with the income of a student while assessing compensation. The finding on issue no. 4 does not require any interference. 16. The next question is with regard to monthly income of the deceased Umang Arora. In the case of M.R. Krishna Murthi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken note of various judgments, which dealt with the income of a student while assessing compensation. The cases referred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.R. Krishna Murthi (supra) are: Arvind Kumar Mishra vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2010 (3) Apex Court Judgments 484 (S.C.) : (2010) 10 SCC 254 , Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Deo Patodi & Ors., 2010 (1) Apex Court Judgments 219 (S.C.) : (2009) 13 SCC 123 , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ganga Devi & Ors. (judgment of High Court of Delhi) passed in MAC. APP. No. 135 of 2008, and many other judgments. 17. In the case of Arvind Kumar Mishra (supra), the deceased was a student of final year of engineering and his future earning was assessed at Rs.60,000/- per annum. In the case of Deo Patodi (supra), the deceased was a brilliant student who had declined some good job offer at a salary of Rs.18 lakhs per annum. His future earning was assessed at Rs. 18,000/- per month. In the case of Ganga Devi (supra), the deceased had completed his MBBS and was doing internship and his future earning was assessed at Rs. 18,000/- per month. 18. In cases where there is no record of the income of the deceased, it is always a matter which is decided on the basis of attending circumstances, qualifications, occupation, future prospects and many other related factors. There is no straightjacket formula which may apply to assess the future earning in such cases. It is somehow a guess work also but the judicial approach which is maintained is to reach to the optimum level of correct appreciation of future earning. 19. In the instant case, the Tribunal noted and considered the evidence about the study and the qualification of the deceased Umang Arora. The Tribunal noted that he was a second year MBA student in IMS, Roorkee and also the fact that if he would have survived, he would have secured a good job. It is thereafter the case laws were referred by the Tribunal and concluded that the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs. 12,000/-. 20. The Tribunal noted that he was a second year MBA student in IMS, Roorkee and also the fact that if he would have survived, he would have secured a good job. It is thereafter the case laws were referred by the Tribunal and concluded that the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs. 12,000/-. 20. This Court does not see any reason to disturb this finding. This finding cannot be termed as not based on any evidence. This finding has been recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of available evidence. Accordingly this Court is of the view that the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 21. The appeal is dismissed.