JUDGMENT :

1. The claimants in a motor accident claim have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the ‘Act’) against the judgment dated 30.04.2015 and award dated 13.05.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Faizabad in Claim Petition No.165 of 2013 (Jaishunisha and another v. Pawan Kumar and others) seeking increase in compensation.

2. On 02.09.2012, at about 9.30 a.m., a pickup van bearing registration no. UP 42 T 5256 belonging to Pawan Kumar, respondent no.1, and driven by Sanjay Kumar, respondent no.3, in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and dashed against a motor cycle bearing no. UP 42 S 3262, which was parked on the extreme left side of the road near Tiny Tots school at Lucknow -Faizabad National Highway No.28. As a result of the said accident Mehtab Ahmad, the son of the appellants, who was sitting on the back seat of the said motor cycle, suffered grievous injuries. He was taken to District Hospital, Faizabad from where he was referred to Lucknow for better treatment where he was treated up to 13.09.2012. On 13.09.2012, Mehtab Ahmad was taken back to Faizabad. On reaching Faizabad his condition again became serious and so he was taken to District Hospital, Faizabad where during treatment he died the same day. The post mortem was conducted on 14.09.2012 in District Hospital, Faizabad. FIR was lodged by Kallu Kurashi on 03.09.2012 at Police Station Cantt., District Faizabad.

3. Jaishunisha and Kallu Kurashi, the parents of the deceased, filed a claim petition, under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs.16,80,000/-along with interest @ 14% per annum. The claimants-appellants pleaded that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the pickup van and that at the time of the accident the deceased was 18 years of age and he was employed as mate/supervisor in a private firm Sarkar Associates, Chowk, Faizabad from where he earned a sum of Rs. 6,000/-per month.

4. The respondent no. 1 and 3 contested the claim and filed a joint written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. They denied the involvement of the pickup van in the accident. It was stated that Sanjay Kumar, the driver of the van was a skilled driver and had a valid and effective driving license on the date of the alleged accident. They additionally mentioned that the van was insured with respondent no. 2, the Oriental Insurance Company and that there being no breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, the compensation, if any, was to be paid by respondent no.2. Respondent no. 2, the insurer also contested the claim by filing their written statement.

5. Based upon the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed six issues. In support of their case the second appellant examined himself as PW 1 and one Mohd. Idrish was examined as PW 2. On behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 3, Pawan Kumar, the owner of the pickup van was examined as DW 1. No oral evidence was led by respondent no. 2. The parties also filed documentary evidence in support of their respective cases.

6. After analysing the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending van. While deciding the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal, rejected the certificate alleged to have been issued by Sarkar Associates, Chowk, Faizabad and produced by the appellants in support of their case that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/-per month. The Tribunal concluded that the certificate could not be duly proved. In the absence of any documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal took the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/-per month. It also determined that the deceased was a bachelor and was aged about 18 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal deducted half of his income towards hi