Notional income of professional students must reflect career potential rather than unskilled minimum wages.

On July 23, 2013, a fatal road accident occurred near the MCD toll tax, Gazipur, involving a UP Roadways bus (UP-84T-2042) and a scooter

The deceased, a 22-year-old graduate of the School of Planning and Architecture (SPA), Delhi, was found 100 metres behind the bus, while her scooter was stuck under the front axle of the bus

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded Rs. 49,95,000 with 9% interest to the respondent/claimant

The Appellant (Corporation) challenged the award, arguing that the scooter rider was negligent and contesting the quantum of compensation regarding notional income and future prospects

The court applied Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, emphasizing the principle of "just compensation" based on fairness and reasonableness

It relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi regarding the standardization of future prospects and conventional heads

It followed Sarla Verma v. DTC for the application of the multiplier method and objective assessment

Regarding student income, it applied principles from Navjot Singh v. Harpreet Singh and S. Mohammed Hakkim v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., which establish that the notional income of professional degree students should reflect their potential market value rather than minimum wages

The Court rejected the Appellant’s plea of contributory negligence, noting that the site plan (Mark A, B, and C) belied the driver’s testimony; the fact that the scooter was dragged for 100 metres through a toll tax indicated the bus hit the scooter from the front/side, not vice versa

On quantum, the Court upheld the notional income of Rs. 30,000, noting that batchmates from SPA were earning an average of Rs. 35,000

Although Pranay Sethi typically limits future prospects to 40% for non-permanently employed individuals under 40, the Court treated this as a "special case" due to the deceased’s elite educational background and long career trajectory, maintaining the 50% increase to ensure "just compensation"

The Court adjusted conventional heads (Consortium, Estate, and Funeral Expenses) to align with current Supreme Court mandates

The Court awarded Rs. 48,60,000 for loss of dependency, Rs. 40,00,000 for loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate, and Rs. 15,000 for funeral expenses, while deleting the separate head for "love and affection". The Registrar General was directed to release the balance amount to the respondent and refund any excess deposit to the Appellant