The court emphasized the need to consider the pecuniary loss caused to the estate of the deceased and his family members when assessing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J.-Heard Sri Mohd. Ali, learned Counsel for the appellants, Sri Suresh Panjwani, learned Counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri Shishir Pradhan, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the records.

2. The First Appeal from Order has been preferred under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by Vinay Kumar Agarwal and Smt. Kusum Lata Agarwal, parents of the deceased Saurabh Agarwal against the judgment and award dated 26.5.2000 passed by the learned 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hardoi claiming enhancement of compensation awarded by the impugned judgment and award along with the interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the present claim till the date of actual payment.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 4.71995 the deceased Saurabh Agarwal was travelling in a Jeep Taxi No. UP 78-4871 to Kanpur for purchasing of certain items for his shop. At about 8.00 A. M. on Hadoi-Belgram road near Tehsil Kusera a Tractor having registration No. UGD-1807 driven by the respondent No.4 came on a high speed and due to negligent and rash driving of the driver collided with Jeep due to which the deceased Saurabh Agarwal along with driver of the Jeep died on the spot and other passengers were injured. A police report was lodged at Police Station Belgram on 4.7.1995 at about 8.15 A. M. At the time of accident, the age of deceased was approximately 24 years. The deceased Saurabh Agarwal was engaged in the business of Readymade Garments, Sarafa and transport. The deceased Saurabh Agarwal was unmarried at the time of his death.

4. The appellants, before the Tribunal claimed that the deceased Saurabh Agarwal was a partner having 25% share in the partnership firm in which his father, the appellant No.1 was also a partner. Due to the accident, they have lost their young son who was looking after the business on the basis of which they were carrying out livelihood which has been badly affected.

5. The respondents had filed their written statement before the learned Tribunal denying the assertion made in the claim petition. The respondent Sukh Sagar in its written statement submitted that he is the owner of the jeep, in which the deceased Saurabh Agarwal was travelling. At the time of the accident, the jeep was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company. The driver of the jeep had not driven the vehicle negligently. In the written statement submitted by the Oriental Insurance Company, it was submitted that the claim has not been filed on the prescribed proforma full filing the necessary conditions hence it is not maintainable. The owner of the Tractor No. UGD-1807 in its statement filed before the learned Tribunal had submitted that at the time of the accident the vehicle along with its trolley was insured with United India Insurance Company and the driver was having a valid licence. It was further submitted that the accident with jeep was not occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. In the written statement submitted by the United India Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal, it was submitted that since the site plan of the place of occurrence was not submitted with the claim, therefore, the accident is not admitted.

6. On the basis of rival submission made by the parties the learned Tribunal hard framed the following issues :

1. Whether in the alleged accident in which the son of the applicants, Saurabh Agarwal of the applicant died, the vehicles No. UP-79/K-4871 and UGD-1807 were involved and whether the accident was occurred due to negligence of drivers?

2. Whether the vehicle No. 79/K-4871 was insured by the Oriental Insurance Company and whether the vehicle was insured at the time of accident, if Yes or No, what was the effect?

3. Whether the vehicle No. UGD 1807 was insured by the United India Insurance Company, if Yes or No, what was the effect?

4. Whether the drivers of vehicles No. UP-79/K-4871 and UGD-1807 had valid drivin