The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct calculation of compensation, including the deduction of pension and application of the multiplier, in accordance with legal provisions and precedents.

1. This FAFO has been filed against judgement and order dated 23rd May 2011 passed by Additional District Judge Court No.9, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Faizabad for enhancement of award granted in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 78 of 2010 by which a sum of Rs. 4,57,520/- has been awarded.

2. A claim petition was filed by Sudama Devi and others claiming that Amar Bahadur Singh was going to his duty of security at Ram Janambhoomi and when he reached Faizabad-Raebareily road in the night of 21st February, 2010 at about 1:30 A.M., a vehicle no. U.P. 40 2T 4358 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver crushed him due to which he received serious injuries. He was rushed to the District Hospital Faizabad. On the way he succumbed to the injuries. A first information report was lodged in local Police Station Kumarganj same-day which was registered as crime number 108 of 2010 under section 279, 337, 338 IPC. At the time of death deceased was employed as a Constable in police department and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month and his age was 40 years.

3. Karimullah, the owner of the vehicle has filed his written statement denying the accident and asserted that the driver and the Vehicle was insured by the O.P. No. 3 the insurance company and the insurance was valid from 18th of February, 2010 to 17th of February, 2011.

4. O.P. No. 2 by filing his written statement denied the accident but has asserted that he was having valid and effective driving licence which was valid till 27th of July 2012.

5. The insurance company by filing the written statement denied the allegations of the claim petition and stated that no cause of action has arisen thus the petition is liable to be dismissed. It was also asserted that the vehicle driver was not having proper and effective driving licence at the time of accident which took place due to sole negligence of the deceased. Claimant has to prove that the incident took place due to negligence of the vehicle driver.

6. The Tribunal below after going through the pleadings of the parties framed following issues-

1-Whether in the night of 21st of February 2010 at about 1:30 AM husband of the claimant Amar Bahadur Yadav was hit by vehicle numberU.P.42 T 4358 which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently on Faizabad - Rae Bareilly Road and he succumbed to injuries while on the way to the hospital?

2-Whether the vehicle was insured with O.P. No. 3 the Insurance Company at the time of accident and the insurance was valid and effective, if so its effect?

3- Whether the vehicle driver was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident?

4-Whether the claimant are entitled to get any compensation? If so from whom and how much?

5- Whether the claimant is entitled for any other relief?

7. In order to prove the claim, appellant No.1 Sudama Devi has examined herself and Achchey Lal Yadav. The opposite parties have examined Karimullah as CPW-1. Apart from the first information report, post-mortem report and inquest report was filed from the side of appellants. Certain other papers were filed which shall be discussed later on, if necessary. Opposite party has also filed four papers which will be discussed later, if necessary. After going through the record and evidence the Tribunal below has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,57,520/-. Finding it inadequate, the present FAFO has been filed for enhancement of the award.

8. It was argued from the side of appellants that sufficient evidence was provided regarding salary of deceased but Tribunal below has committed manifest error of law by making notional income into consideration. It was also argued that Tribunal has erred in deducting pension for calculating the compensation. On the other hand, learned counsel for Insurance Company has argued that Tribunal has correctly calculated the amount according to the salary slip of the deceased and has rightly deducted the pension.

9. Heard the respective submissions of the parties and