The main legal point established in the judgment is the attribution of negligence and the enhancement of compensation based on evidence and legal precedents.

1. The above captioned three appeals are directed against common impugned Award of 2nd August, 2008 vide which compensation of Rs.15,90,000/- and Rs.2,75,000/- with interest has been granted to Claimant- Dr. Saurabh Kumar Gupta on account of death of his wife, aged about 29 years and death of his minor daughter, aged about 2½ years, in a road accident on 24th May, 2005. The above captioned first appeal is by Claimant, who seeks enhancement of compensation, whereas above captioned second and third appeals are by the Insurer, who seeks to absolve itself from the liability to pay compensation by asserting that negligence was of the tractor-trolley driver and not of car driver and in the alternative, plea of contributory negligence has been put forth by the Insurer.

2. As per order of 26th February, 2009, in the above captioned first appeal and as per order of 29th May, 2012 in the above captioned second and third appeal, service is complete. Since these appeals arise out of common impugned Award of 2nd August, 2008, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The factual background of this case stands already noted in the impugned Award and so, needs no reproduction. Suffice to note that on 24th May, 2005 wife and daughter of Claimant along with his mother and mother-in-law, were travelling in Maruti Zen Car No.UP 75 B 7949, which was driven by Kuldeep and on that day, at about 11:45 a.m., it collided with a tractor-trolley at the crossing near Chatta, Mathura. In this accident, driver of car in question and wife and daughter of Claimant had died. It is a matter of record that in respect of this accident, FIR was got registered against driver of tractor-trolley in question. Pertinently, the registered owner of car in question was ex parte before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and here also, he is ex parte. However, he has deposed before the learned Tribunal. Apart from his evidence, there is evidence of eye witness- Dr. Vijay Gupta and surveyor of the Insurer. On the basis of evidence on record, the impugned Award has been rendered. The breakup of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is as under:-

4. Mr. S.P. Singh Chaudhary, Advocate for Claimant- Dr. Saurabh Kumar Gupta, submits that income tax return of the year 2005-06 has not been considered while assessing the income of the deceased and income tax return of the earlier year i.e. 2004-05 has been considered and infact, the subsequent income tax return ought to have been considered and so, the compensation awarded needs to be suitably enhanced. It is submitted that interest of 7.5% p.a. granted is on lower side and the reasonable rate of interest which ought to have been granted is 9% p.a. It is submitted that the compensation granted under the non-pecuniary heads is on the lower side and it needs to be suitably enhanced.

5. Mr. Akhilesh Kr. Sharma, Advocate for driver of the tractor-trolley supports the impugned Award and submits that as per evidence of eye-witness, the negligence was of the car driver and so, the liability to pay the compensation cannot be shifted upon the owner of tractor-trolley in question. Attention of this Court is drawn to certified copy of site plan of the spot prepared in the criminal proceedings to submit that mere registration of FIR against the driver of tractor-trolley in question is of no consequence for the reason that Ved Prakash, author of this FIR, has not been got examined. It is submitted that version put forth by aforesaid Ved Prakash stands contradicted from sit