Hon’ble Aditya Nath Mittal, J.—All these first appeal from first orders relates to the same accident, hence, they are taken together.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company.

2. As per the claimants, on 7.4.2004, Pankaj Kumar Asthana (deceased) was travelling from Lucknow to Sindholi by his Motorcycle No. 32 A.T./6686 alongwith his wife Smt. Dali Asthana, son Saurabh Kumar alias Neeraj, daughter Shivangi Asthana alias Pinki. The deceased was having valid driving license. At about 4.00 PM, when he reached near Makimpur Crossing, then Qualis Vehicle No. P.B.02 A.G./7974, which was being driven very rashly and negligently caused accident with the motorcycle of Pankaj Kumar Asthana due to which Pankaj Kumar Asthana, Smt. Dali Asthana, Saurabh Kumar alias Neeraj, Shivangi Asthana alias Pinki received grievous injuries and they were first brought to P.H.C. Sindholi from where they were referred to Medical Collage, Lucknow. Pankaj Kumar Asthana expired on the same day while other persons remained admitted in the Medical Collage for a few days. MAC No. 193/2004 was filed by the parents as well as the injured persons for compensation regarding the death of Pankaj Kumar Asthana. Smt. Dali Asthana, Saurabh Kumar alias Neeraj, Shivangi Asthana alias Pinki had also filed separate claim petitions No. 194/2004, 195/2004 and 196/2004 for compensation regarding their respective injuries. The Insurance Company had contested the claim petitions and had taken a plea that conditions of the insurance policy have been violated, therefore, the insurance company is not liable.

3. After framing the issues in all the cases independently and after recording the evidence of both the parties, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that on the alleged date, time and place, the accident was caused by Qualis Vehicle No. P.B.02 A.G./7974 with the Motorcycle No. 32 A.T./6686 due to which Pankaj Kumar Asthana had expired and Smt. Dali Asthana, Saurabh Kumar alias Neeraj, Shivangi Asthana alias Pinki got injuries. Learned Tribunal also came to the conclusion that at the time of accident, both the drivers were having valid licenses and the said Qualis Vehicle was insured by the United India Insurance Company Limited and the policy was valid on the date of the incident. The Insurance Company had failed to prove that the said Qualis Vehicle was driven by some unauthorized person. Learned Tribunal also came to the conclusion that there was no contributory negligence of the driver of the motorcycle and accordingly allowed the claim petition by separate orders dated dated 6.3.2006 and 7.3.2006 and granted compensation.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted Rs. 5,000/- per year from the total income of the deceased regarding travelling expenses and has also not considered the future prospects of the deceased. It has also been submitted that the learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of the total income towards personal expenses while in view of the recent judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court, this deduction should be 1/5th of the total income. It has also been submitted that the compensation towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses has also been awarded on the very lower side. As regards the other appeals of the injured persons, it has been submitted that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards treatment in future.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has defended the impugned award but has fairly conceded that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per year has been wrongly deducted regarding conveyance expenditure. It has also been submitted that the learned Tribunal has considered all the aspects of the matter in detail and except deduction of Rs. 5,000/- from the total income, there is no other material illegality in the impugned award.

6. The F.A.F.O. No. 588/2006 relates to the compensation regarding death of Pan