By the Court.—Heard Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri S.C.Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. The claimants/appellants (hereinafter referred as the ‘appellants’) have filed the present appeal against the judgment and award dated 11th October, 2010 passed by Sri S.S.Upadhyay, Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, /Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehpur in M.A.C.P. No. 35 of 2007 (Smt. Jai Kumari Devi and others v. Smt. Pushpa Gupta and another) whereby the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal has been challenged on several grounds.

3. Though the controversy relates only to the quantum of compensation but in order to appreciate the questions involved in the present appeal, we think it proper to briefly noticed the facts.

4. Shorn of unnecessary facts, the claim petition was filed by appellant No. 1, mother, appellant No. 2 father, appellant No. 3 sister and appellant No. 4 brother of the deceased Km.Vibha with the averments that the deceased was aged about 25 years. She was a teacher and earning about Rs. 8, 560/- per month by way of salary, Rs. 3,000/- from tuition and Rs. 2,000/- from sewing work. Thus, her total income was Rs. 14,840/-?. On 31st October, 2006, the deceased was going with her brother, respondent No. 4, to bus station Pakka Talab in order to board the bus to her school. They were walking on the left patri of the road. When they crossed Belahi Bazar, they met their father and started talking. At about 9.00 a.m. Truck No. U.P.78 B 4689 came there driven very rashly and negligently and hit the deceased and appellant No. 4 on the wrong side. The deceased died at the spot and appellant No. 4 sustained grievous injuries. F.I.R. was lodged at the police station on the same day. Post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased was conducted. Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the offending vehicle. Respondent No. 2 is the insurance company. The deceased had a very bright future. She was officiating as head mistress of the school. She was looking after the education of the appellants Nos. 3 and 4. Appellants are her legal representatives. On various heads Rs. 28.59,240/- was claimed as compensation.

5. Both the respondents contested the claim petition. Respondent No. 1 had admitted the accident, lodging of the F.I.R, and registration number of the offending truck, its ownership and fact of the truck being insured. In the additional pleas, it has been stated that at the time of accident, truck was driven by experienced and skilled driver at moderate speed. The accident is the result of negligence of the deceased. Papers of the offending vehicle were valid at the time of accident. Since the vehicle is insured with the respondent No. 2, if any compensation is to be paid, it will be paid by the Insurance Company.

6. The Insurance Company has denied the averments of the claim petition. It has been stated in the additional pleas that claim petition has been filed with collusion with the respondent No. 1. The claimants are required to prove the accident had occurred due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The answering respondent is entitled to avoid the liability on the grounds prescribed in Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claim petition is not in proper proforma and deserves to be rejected.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, four issues were framed. Both the parties had filed documentary evidence and examined the witnesses during the oral evidence. On issue No. 1- negligence of the driver, the tribunal has returned the finding that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending truck. In the accident, the deceased and respondent No. 4 were injured. The deceased died at the spot.

8. On Issue Nos. 2 and 3- findings have been recorded that at the time of the accident, the driver had a valid and operative driving license. All papers of the offending vehicle were valid and o