By the Court.—Heard learned counsels for parties.

2. Insurance company felt aggrieved by judgment and award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 15, Meerut, in Motor Accident Claim No. 1156 of 2014.

3. Both these appeals arise out of same accident and same judgment and order passed by Tribunal. Both Insurance company and claimants are before us. Insurance company has felt aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 20.7.2016 in M.A.C. No. 1156 of 2014.

4. Parties are referred as Claimants and Insurance Company.

5. Brief facts leading to filing of present petition are that on 29.7.2014 when deceased was going on his motorcycle, he was hit by an Indica Car, which was coming from opposite direction. Deceased suffered grave injuries due to said accident. Deceased died during treatment and after 28 days of accident. Claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 50,51,403/- was filed before Tribunal. In reply filed by owner of vehicle i.e. Indica Car, the factum of accident with the vehicle of deceased was denied. Insurance company also filed its written statement denying liability of payment on various grounds mainly contending that there was breach of policy. Claimants led evidence orally as well as by documentary evidence. They examined Vimla as PW-1 and Sri Aman Deep as PW2. One Anand Singh, who was investigator of Company, was examined by Insurance company.

6. Learned Counsel for Insurance company has contended that F.I.R. was lodged after 11 days of accident having taken place which causes doubt about involvement of vehicle. Second aspect is that deceased did not die due to accidental injuries but died by Septicemia and, therefore, it cannot be said that death was due to accident as cause was Septicemia and shock. Learned Counsel for Insurance company even contended that if it is believed that vehicle was involved then accident arose due to sole negligence of driver of said vehicle of the deceased. Learned Counsel for appellant has submitted that negligence attributed to deceased was on lesser side. He was sole negligent if not sole negligent, his contributory negligence be considered at 50% or more. Against this, counsel for claimants has submitted that he was not at all negligent. Indica Car is a bigger Car, his negligence should be held more than 60% and it was his sole negligence. As far as issue of quantum is concerned, it is submitted by counsel for Insurance company that 1/3rd instead of 1/4th should have been deducted towards the personal expenses of deceased. It is further submitted that quantum awarded is much higher than what should have been awarded as per principles enunciated in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 ACJ 1298. It is submitted that income considered at Rs. 6000/- per month and adding 30% per month as future loss is also bad in eye of law.

7. Learned Counsel for claimants has submitted that negligence of deceased has been computed on much higher side. It cannot be said that he was in any way negligent. The evidence proved before Tribunal is otherwise and in absence of any evidence to consider deceased as 40% negligent without assigning any reason is also bad. It is submitted that Tribunal has misinterpreted decision in Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidyadhar Dutta and others, 2006 (1) TAC 969 (SC). It is further submitted that quantum awarded is on lesser side. Tribunal has not added any amount towards future income. It is further submitted that amount of awarded under head of consortium and love of affection is also on lower side. It is submitted that compensation requires to be enhanced and finding of negligence requires to be interfered by this Court.

8. We have heard learned counsels for parties.

9. First submission of appellant about delay in filing F.I.R. has been answered by Tribunal and we concur with the same as a person would see that his family members gets treatment, the delay in filing of F.I.R. would not dis-entitle claimants from claiming compens