Point of Law : In death cases, compensation would be awarded only under three conventional heads, viz – loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.

JUDGMENT :

SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.

1. The above First Appeal From Orders have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Act, 1988’) against the judgment and award dated 30.5.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lucknow in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 99 of 2015. First Appeal From Order No. 817 of 2016 has been filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd., Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Insurance Company’) for setting-aside the award dated 30.5.2016 while First Appeal From Order No. 51 of 2018 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. The appellant in First Appeal From Order No. 817 of 2016 shall hereinafter be referred as the Insurance Company in the present appeal. The opposite party nos. 1 to 4 in First Appeal From Order No. 817 of 2016 shall hereinafter be referred as the claimants in the present appeal, the opposite party no. 5 in First Appeal From Order No. 817 of 2016 is the owner of the vehicle and shall hereinafter be referred as owner of the offending vehicle and opposite party no. 6 is the driver of the offending vehicle and shall hereinafter be referred as driver of the offending vehicle in the present judgment.

2. The facts of the case are that Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 99 of 2015 was instituted by the claimants claiming a compensation of Rs.22,00,000/-for the death of Sushil (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the deceased’) due to the injuries caused in the accident which allegedly took place due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No. U.P. 32 C.N. -4757 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘offending vehicle’). The accident took place on 22.12.2014 at 7:50 a.m. In the claim petition, the accident was alleged to have occurred in front of Bajrang Hospital. The case of the claimants is that on 22.12.2014 the deceased was going on a bicycle to join his duties in Usha Company and, at 7:50 a.m. when he was in front of Bajrang Hospital, the offending vehicle hit the bicycle from the front causing injuries to the deceased who subsequently died on 6.1.2015 due to the injuries caused in the accident. It has been stated by the claimants that the deceased was initially admitted in Bajrang Hospital who after giving first aid to the deceased referred him to Trauma Centre in King George Medical University, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as, ‘K.G.M.U.’) where the deceased died on 6.1.2015. According to the claimants, the deceased was admitted in the K.G.M.U. on 22.12.2014 itself. A First Information Report registering Case Crime No. 476 of 2014 under Sections 279, 338 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code was also registered against the driver of the offending vehicle on 31.12.2014. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was working as a Loader in Usha Company as well as for certain private traders and earned Rs.9,000/-per month. On the aforesaid pleas, the claimants claimed a compensation of Rs.22,00,000/-for the death of the deceased. The opposite party no. 1/claimant no. 1 is the father of the deceased, opposite party no. 2/claimant no. 2 is the mother of the deceased, opposite party no. 3/claimant no. 3 is the wife of the deceased and opposite party no. 4/claimant no. 4 is the minor son of the deceased. Opposite party no. 4 was one year old at the time of accident.

3. The owner and the driver of the vehicle filed their written statements denying the incident and the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and also denied the allegation that Sushil died due to any injuries caused in the accident. The case of the owner and the driver of the vehicle was that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was not plying on the route on which the accident occurred. It was additionally pleaded by the owner and the driver of the vehicle that at the time of accident, the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and the driver of the vehicle had a valid driving licence. The Insurance Company, i.e., the appellant also filed