Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sandeep Dixit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/claimants.

2. With the consent of both the parties, the present appeal is being disposed of at this stage.

3. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order of Tribunal dated 17.4.2014, by which the Tribunal has awarded Rs.18,24,900/- towards compensation.

4. Brief facts of the case stated in the impugned order dated on 2.2.2010, are that when Hari Narayan Singh Teotia, deceased was going on motor-cycle, bearing registration No. UP-30-D-3721 at 3.20 p.m. At in front of Government College, Palia Road, Barabanki, he has been hit by another motor-cycle, bearing registration No. UP-41-L-7754, as a result of the accident, Hari Narayan Singh Teotia received grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries. The appellant is the insurer of motor-cycle, bearing registration No. UP-41-L-7754. Hari Narayan Singh Teotia was Sub-Inspector in police department. PW-2 was also sitting on motor-cycle as a pillion rider, has also suffered injuries in the accident. Tribunal having regard to the age of the deceased, income etc. has estimated the compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that PW-2, Rajendra Singh has lodged the first information report on 2.2.2010 itself in respect of the accident, who has not informed the registration number of the motor-cycle. He stated that he could not see the registration number of the motor-cycle, inasmuch as the driver of­ the motor-cycle ran away. He stated that in case driver of the motor-cycle comes before him, he can recognise him. In the investigation, it was found that the accident took place by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of motor-cycle, bearing registration No. UP-41-L-7754. The owner of the said vehicle has also admitted that the accident was caused by the said motor-cycle. First charge-sheet was submitted against Mohit Kanojia, son of Ram Karan Kanojia, under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of I.P.C. However, on the same day, another charge-sheet has been submitted against Ram Karan Kanojia, the owner of the vehicle, under Sections 304-A of I.P.C. and 5/180 of Motor Vehicles Act. He submitted that the case against Mohit Kanojia is pending before the criminal Court, Juvenile Justice Board, as Mohit Kanojia being minor. Since Mohit Kanojia could not possess driving licence, therefore, a case has been made out that the vehicle was being driven by Ram Karan Kanojia, the owner of the vehicle, and the driving licence of Ram Karan Kanojia was filed. He further submitted that the entire case has been manipulated and camouflaged. He further submitted that on 2.2.2010, Ram Karan Kanojia possess two driving licences, which are contrary to the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. He further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding 20% towards future prospect. Rule 220-A of Motor Vehicles Rule comes into effect on 26.9.2011 and it applies prospectively, therefore, it does not apply to the present case as in the present case, the accident took place on 2.2.2010. He submitted that at the time of the accident, the deceased was 56 years old and therefore, the compensation towards future prospect could not be awarded in view of decision of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (2) TAC 677.

6. We partly find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant.

7. Rajendra was sitting on the motor-cycle, bearing registration No. UP-30-D-3721 alongwith deceased, who was the only eye-witness of the accident. He has also lodged the first information report. In the first information report, he categorically stated that the accident took place between two motor-cycles. He further stated that he could not see the registration number of the motor-cycle as the driver of the motor-cycle ran away. He also state