JUDGMENT :

SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Both the First Appeals From Order have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1988’) and arise from the same award of the Tribunal, i.e. the judgment and award dated 26.3.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/FTC Court, District-Lakhimpur Kheri (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Tribunal’) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 339 of 2014 and were therefore connected and have been heard together.

2. Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 566 of 2016 has been filed by the Insurance Company, which was one of the defendant in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 339 of 2014 and has been filed to set aside the award dated 26.3.2016. Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 145 of 2017 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. The Insurance Company is the appellant in F.A.F.O. No. 566 of 2016 and shall be referred as Insurance Company in the present judgment, the claimants are respondent Nos. 1 to 8 in the aforesaid appeal and shall be referred as claimants in the present judgment. The owner of the offending vehicle is respondent No. 9 in F.A.F.O. No. 566 of 2016 and shall be referred as the owner of the vehicle. The driver of the offending vehicle has been arrayed as respondent No. 10 in F.A.F.O. No. 566 of 2016 and shall be referred as driver of the offending vehicle in the present judgment.

3. Claimant No. 1 is the wife of the deceased, claimant No. 2 is the mother of the deceased, claimant Nos. 3 to 7 are the sons of the deceased and claimant No. 8 is the daughter of the deceased. On the date of the accident claimant Nos. 3 to 6 were major and between 18 to 23 years.

4. The order-sheet of the First Appeal From Order No. 145 of 2017 shows that vide order dated 13.12.2017 a Division Bench of this Court had condoned the delay in filing the aforesaid appeal. However, it appears that regular number has not yet been allotted to First Appeal From Order No. 145 of 2017 and the records reflect the defective number. However, as the delay in filing the appeal has been condoned, the Court proceeded to hear the appeal on merits. Apart from the aforesaid, the order-sheet of the case also indicates that service of notice on the owner of the vehicle was held to be sufficient, but service of notice on the driver of he offending vehicle, who has been arrayed as respondent No. 2 in First Appeal From Order No. 145 of 2017, was held not to be sufficient by noting dated 1.3.2019 of the Joint Registrar (J)(L). However, as the Insurance Company has not questioned the award of the Tribunal so far as the award holds it liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle, therefore, the Court has proceeded to hear both the appeals on merits without waiting for service of notice of the appeal on the driver of the offending vehicle.

5. The facts of the case are that the claimants instituted Motor Accident Claim Petition Case No. 339 of 2014 before the Tribunal alleging that one Rafiq (hereinafter referred to as, ‘deceased’) was killed in an accident which happened on 1.8.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of a tanker bearing Registration No. UP-31T-5208 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘offending vehicle’). It was stated in the claim petition that on 1.8.2014 at 4:30 p.m. the deceased was going on a motorcycle to join his duties when the offending vehicle hit the motorcycle from the front as a result of which the deceased suffered injuries and subsequently died on 17.8.2014 due to the aforesaid injuries. It was further stated in the claim petition that the deceased was aged 45 years and was working as Fodder Cutter in the Forest Department getting a salary of Rs. 26,280/- per month and the claimants were dependent on the deceased. On the aforesaid pleadings the claimants sought compensation of Rs. 50 lacs for the death of Rafiq. It is also on record that a First Information Report registering Case Crime No. 630 of 2014 under Sections 279, 358 and 427 I.P.C. was regist