By the Court.—Heard Sri Amresh Sinha, learned Counsel for appellant and Sri R.K. Porwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. Facts as revealed by record are that on 5.7.2002 at about 4.10 a.m. on Bareilly-Etawah road near Galla Mandi, within circle of P.S. Ikdil, District Etawah, when deceased Shivendra Kumar, alongwith his two companions, was coming back to Etawah from Basehor after doing AAMPASI work on a motor cycle on left side of road, Tractor No. UP 75-A/1732 coming from the side of Etawah, being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, collided with motor cycle of deceased which resulted into death of Shivendra Kumar while other persons sustained grievous injuries. One Yogendra Singh lodged report of accident at P.S. Ikdil, District Etawah, on same day at 16:25 hours. Investigating Officer investigated case and after observing necessary formalities, submitted charge-sheet against Saran Singh, driver of tractor. Postmortem examination of deceased Shivendra Kumar was conducted on 5.7.2002 at about 10:00 p.m. Tribunal in its final order awarded a sum of Rs. 9,52,416/- with interest at the rate of 6% as against a claim petition of Rs. 13,00,000/-. Tribunal did not consider driver of motorcycle i.e. deceased negligent. It was driver of Tractor, who was held solely negligent.

3. Both owner and Insurance company (appellant) contested petition before Tribunal and filed their written statements separately. The owner - Tofan Singh has averred in his written statement that amount of compensation as claimed, is too excessive, that tractor was duly insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. On the date of accident vide cover note No. 12810 which was valid w.e.f. 8.9.2001 to 7.9.2002 and tractor was being driven by driver, who had proper driving license on date of accident. Insurance company has mentioned in written statement that no cause of action arose for petitioners to filed instant claim petition as no such accident took place, as alleged in the petition, that, no information as required vide rule 158 (6) of Motor Vehicles Act has been given to Insurance Company either by owner of tractor or by petitioners, that no copy of F.I.R. charge-sheet, site plan, postmortem report of deceased, registration certificate of tractor, driving license of tractor, been filed on record, that owner and Insurer of offending tractor have not been made party to petition, that no certificate showing the age and income petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. It is further contended that Tribunal has misdirected itself in holding that vehicle was involved in the accident. It is vehemently submitted by learned Counsel that findings are erroneous as offending tractor was not one and same by which accident took place. It was contended that compensation awarded is on much higher side as Tribunal has not deducted amount which was being deducted by employer.

5. It is submitted that Tribunal has fallen in error in not considering ratio laid in case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 ACJ 1298. Salary of deceased was taken as amount admissible to family without considering deduction made from salary. Learned counsel for appellant relied on certificate issued by department and contended that Tribunal fell in error in not deducting amount under head of PPF, HRA and other deductions, which were made from his salary. It is submitted that multiplier is also on higher side and rate of interest granted is on higher side.

6. It is further submitted that driver of motorcycle i.e. deceased was also negligent in causing accident.

7. It is submitted by counsel for claimants that as far as involvement of vehicle in accident is proved by testimony of PW-2, who has withstood cross-examination also. F.I.R., Charge-sheet and Site-plan prove that tractor was involved in accident and, therefore, it cannot be said that vehicle was not involved in accident. It is further submitted that deceased was not at all