JUDGMENT :

This is a claimant’s appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. The two claimant-appellants, Arvind Agrawal and Smt. Renu Agrawal, are the parents of the late Anshul Agrawal, the victim of a fatal motor accident, that happened on 31.05.2008. According to the facts set out in the claim petition, the deceased, Anshul Agrawal, was proceeding on board a Maruti car bearing Registration No. UP 14 T 0150 on 31.05.2008 at about 10 o’clock in the evening hours, along with his workmen, one Dhananjay and another Sonu. He was proceeding from Rampur bound homewards. He lived at Premises No. 6/165, Rajnagar, Police Station Kavinagar, District Ghaziabad, and this was his destination on the fateful journey. When Anshul reached a place in front of the gate at Village Shahbazpur, a truck bearing Registration No. UP 25 T5201, driven at a high speed and negligently, approached from the opposite direction. The truck collided with Anshul’s car head-on. The impact led Anshul, Dhananjay and Sonu to sustain injuries. During medical aid at the Government Hospital, Gajraula, Anshul and Dhananjay lost their battle for life.

3. Arvind Agrawal lodged a first information report, [‘FIR’ for short] at Police Station Gajraula regarding the incident. Arvind Agrawal is arrayed as claimant no. 1 in the claim petition and appellant no. 1 in this appeal. Both the claimant-appellants shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as ‘the claimants’ except where the context requires an individual or a different reference. It is the claimants’ case that on account of the sudden demise of their lone and adult son, Arvind Agrawal was much troubled psychologically. Therefore, on account of an inadvertent error, he mentioned the number of the offending truck as UP 25T 2501 instead of UP 25 T 5201 in the FIR. However, during investigation, Arvind Agrawal took care to amend his mistake by informing the Investigating Officer, [‘IO’ for short]. The IO, after verifying facts and collecting material, charge-sheeted the driver of the offending truck in the crime arising from the accident. It is the claimants’ case that the deceased would provide for the claimants, earning his livelihood from business that he did. The deceased was the claimants’ lone son. He was the sole breadwinner and provided resources for their sustenance. It was the deceased’s income that would enable the family to make ends meet. The deceased was aged 23 years and a healthy man. He had pursued higher technical education and earned a B.Tech (Communications) degree. He was an engineer by training. He was into the business of aluminium fabrication and glass fitting, wherein he was trading with profit. He would earn a sum of Rs.10,281/- per month and had a shop at 68, Punjab Expeller Compound, Meerut Road, Ghaziabad. The claimants, on account of their son’s demise, have been left without support. They have suffered irreparable loss and mental pain. The family, after Anshul’s demise, have plunged into financial crisis. The deceased committed no fault or negligence that contributed to the accident. If the driver of the offending vehicle had not driven it at a high speed and negligently, the claimants’ son would not have suffered an untimely demise. Therefore, opposite parties nos. 1, 2 and 3 to the claim petition, who are the owner, the driver and the insurers of the offending truck, respectively, are entirely liable for the untimely death of the claimants’ son. It is also pleaded on behalf of the claimants that the deceased’s ancestors have lived up to the age of 70-75 years. He would have at least lived to see his 75th birthday. He would have been gainfully employed for a minimum of 40 years and supported the family. The deceased was unmarried.

4. Opposite party no. 2 to the claim petition, Saleem Hussain, is respondent no.