The main legal point established is the application of the multiplier as per the age of the deceased and the award for loss of love and affection to the claimants.

Darshan Singh, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of both the appeals mentioned above, which have arisen out of the same award dated 13.03.2012 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal (hereinafter called as 'the Tribunal') vide which claimants/appellants of FAO No. 3720 of 2012 have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,50,000/- on account of death of their son Ankit Sharma in the motor vehicular accident, which took place on 13.03.2010.

2. FAO No. 3720 of 2012 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the amount of the compensation.

3. FAO No. 344 of 2013 has been preferred by Uttar Pradesh State Roadways Transport Corporation (respondent No. 2 in the claim petition) the owner of the vehicle, to assail the award.

4. The status of the parties shall be described as per the claim petition.

5. I have heard Mr. Rajinder Singh Rana, Advocate counsel for the appellants-claimants in FAO No. 3720 of 2012, Sh. Sandep Kotla, Advocate counsel for the appellant in FAO No. 344 of 2013 and have carefully gone through the paper book.

6. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the deceased was 22 years of age. He was student of B. Tech 3rd year. He was offered handsome package of Rs. 1,75,000/- per annum by Stanch Infosystems Pvt. Ltd. so the notional income of the deceased taken by the learned Tribunal is less. He further contended that nothing has been awarded to the claimants on account of loss of love and affection. Less amount has been awarded towards funeral expenses. The multiplier has also been wrongly applied as per the age of the claimants. It should have been applied as per the age of the deceased. Thus he contended that learned Tribunal has not awarded the just compensation.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/owner of the vehicle contended that the involvement of the vehicle and negligence of its driver is not established as there was one day's delay in lodging the FIR, which is not explained. He further contended that the income of the deceased taken by the learned tribunal @ Rs. 10,000/- per month was on the higher side. He was only a student of B.Tech and was non-earning person. His notional income should have been taken by the tribunal @ Rs. 1500 per month. Thus he contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant.

8. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions. As per the case of the claimants, on 13.03.2010 at about 8 p.m. their son Ankit Sharma was on his way to Mathura in order to perform the religious journey with his friend Saket Maheshwari. They were travelling on the motorcycle which was being driven by Saket Maheshwari on the correct side of the road at a moderate speed. When they reach near village Bamnikhera the offending bus bearing registration No. UP-80AK-9101 being driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently came from behind and hit the motorcycle. As a result of which Saket Maheshwari and Ankit Sharma fell down. Respondent No. 1 managed to escape from the spot leaving behind the bus. Ankit Sharma had died at the spot.

9. In order to establish the negligence of respondent No. 1 and involvement of the vehicle, the claimants have examined Saket Maheshwari the injured witness as PW-1. Claimants have also placed on file copy of the FIR Exhibit P-1, copy of the post mortem report Exhibit P-15. In rebuttal thereof, respondent No. 1-Sunder Singh, driver of the bus stepped into the witness box as RW-1. 10. PW-1 Saket Maheshwari has fully supported the version mentioned in the claim petition and categorically deposed that the bus bearing registration No. UP-80AK-9101 was being driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently and came from Delhi side which hit the motorcycle from behind. As a result of the accident they both fell down from the motorcycle and suffered injuries. Ankit Sharma succumbed to the injuries at the spot. He also suffered injuries on his person. They were