JUDGMENT :

(J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ the Additional District Judge, Court No.13, Allahabad dated 28.02.2006 passed in MACP No.407 of 2004.

2. The appeal is by the Insurance Company, who say that they are not liable.

3. Cross Objection No.65668 of 2013 has been brought on behalf of the claimants, who are respondents to the appeal, saying that the compensation awarded is insufficient and ought to be enhanced.

4. This judgment will decide both the appeal and the cross-objections.

5. The facts giving rise to the claim petition are that one Dinesh Kumar Kesarwani was engaged in the business of retailing rice. On 08.07.2004, he was proceeding on a bicycle along with one Somnath Kesarwani – both riding their bicycles from Police Station Saini, District Kaushambi towards Shiv Kuti in Allahabad. He was riding his bicycle according to the rule of the road. At about 20 minutes past 12 in the afternoon hours, a gas tanker approached from the Phaphamau end of the road. It bore registration No. HR-29GA-0320. The tanker was driven by its driver at a high speed and negligently. On the Phaphamau bridge, the tanker aforesaid came over to Kesarwani's side and hit his bicycle. Dinesh Kumar Kesarwani was crushed under the wheels of the tanker and died on the spot. The claim petition was instituted by Satya Narain Kesarwani, the deceased's father, claiming compensation for himself and the deceased's mother, Smt. Nirmala Devi, the two dependents, who survived Dinesh Kumar Kesarwani. It was claimed that the deceased was 25 years old and engaged in the business of selling rice. He was a self-employed man, who would earn Rs.6000/-per month.

6. The owner of the offending tanker, one Tara Chand Goel was impleaded as opposite party No.1 to the claim petition and the National Insurance Company Ltd., M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad were the insurers of the offending tanker. The National Insurance Company (the appellant) and Tara Chand Goel (respondent No.3) shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the Insurers' and 'the owner', respectively. The father and the mother of the deceased, including the legal representatives of the father, substituted pending this appeal, shall be referred to as 'the claimants', unless the context otherwise requires. The claimants demanded a total compensation in the sum of Rs.12,55,000/-.

7. The owner filed a written statement, generally denying the claimants' case. It is pleaded that the offending tanker is insured with the Insurers and information of the accident was given to the Insurers. The offending tanker had a national permit, and that, it was fit and roadworthy. The driver of the tanker held a valid driving licence. The accident happened on account of the deceased's negligence while riding his bicycle. It was the deceased, who by his own negligence, came under the wheels of the offending tanker. Along with the written statement, the owner filed eight documents, which include a power of attorney, a notice sent to the Insurers, registration certificate, permit, fitness certificate, a copy of the insurance cover, driving licence and the five yearly permit.

8. The Insurers filed a separate written statement, generally denying the claimants' case. In the additional pleas, it was averred that the registration book, the driving licence and the permit of the offending tanker, besides other papers have not been filed along with the petition. The compensation claimed for the loss sustained was described as false and bogus, saying that no accident ever took place. It was averred that the claimants have not given the necessary documents and other information in support of the claim petition. The compensation demanded is disproportionate. A plea was also raised to the effect that the offending tanker